This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Just want to let you know I'm not bothered by the sculpture/art thing. It happens. We'll end up with a stronger article(s) however it comes out. --sparkitTALK 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking it up right now in a book I have. A lot of interesting stuff. It's all surprisingly interrelated. Yes, Op art is said to simulate movement, or at least to create the illusion of movement. Interestingly, the term Op art was coined by a Kinetic artist, George Rickey! It is said that the first Kinetic sculpture was Marcel Duchamp's Bicycle Wheel of 1913. Anyway, Op art and Kinetic art (or sculpture) are separate things. I don't see any indication of any overlap. Bus stop 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Neat! I'd read that about Bicycle but hadn't added to any of the articles. I, too, think of only the actual moving stuff as kinetic, but because op art is sometimes referred to as kinetic some mention is warranted, but like I said on the kinetic art talk page, dunno if a whole section is needed. --sparkitTALK 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I really want to see some of your art
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Is this possible? You need to convince me you are actually a painter. You can just e-mail me some samples.AlainLa 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop can answer as he wishes, but I've seen your comment on the AfD, and I want to point out categorically that there is no need for any editor to prove anything, other than their good conduct on wiki. He may or may not be a good or not good artist, but he is making proper judgements according to wikipedia policy as an editor. No harm in asking to see work, but if you get a polite refusal, then don't press any further please. Wikipedia also has a strict policy of preserving editor's anonymity if they wish it. New talk goes beneath old talk by the way, so I've moved your post. Tyrenius 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I don't share pictures of my art online. But thank you for asking. Bus stop 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Canvas Made with Rabbit Skin Glue & Oil-based Primer
Bus Stop
I will accept that you are a painter. Have you ever made a canvas using rabbit skin glue? The primer dries much more slowly than regular artist quality paint. I have made hundreds of canvases for myself and others and it takes weeks--every single time--to dry. The "rabbit skin glue" article is about just that, not about regular paint. Your desire to change this point does not seem to add any more value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.110.196.19 (talk • contribs).
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. Nishkid64 17:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Nishkid64 -- You point out that I should "please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future." To which I would respond, "How much more of an effort to discuss my changes further in the future would you think would be advisable?" In point of fact I have discussed my editing extensively on the Bob Dylan article Talk page. Have you looked at the Bob Dylan article Talk page? Bus stop 19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Clearly 4 reversions in just over 22 hours. Part Deux 18:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That was hours ago. The last of the four edits you refer to was 5 hours ago. I don't think I was reported for those edits. Those were in the lead paragraph. I think I was reported for correcting the unbalanced assertion (in the body of the article) that Bob Dylan had converted to Christianity. I think I was reported because I tried to add balance to the assertion that Dylan had become a "born again Christian." There has simply been no reliable source put forth for that. That has a place in the article, but undue weight should not be given to it. I think the reverts from more than 5 hours ago were just an excuse. Bus stop 18:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As Part Deux showed here, you made 4 reverts within a 24-hour period, which means you violated WP:3RR policy. Nishkid64 18:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The block was put in place more than five hours after the last of those reversions. Do we live in the Information age? How long does it take to act on such a violation? Bus stop 19:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This is ridiculous. I have only made revisions to the article. Apparently I have offended some people by pointing out that they were introducing untruth into the article on Bob Dylan. There is no source whatsoever that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. They have found biographers who have referred to Dylan's "conversion" and so they think that gives them license to blithely refer to his conversion. Similarly, writers have referred to him as a "born again Christian," so they think that provides them with a source to refer to Dylan in the article by that terminology. I have no objection to these things being pointed out. But they have to be balanced out against factual definitions. Wikipedia has articles on Conversion to Christianity, and other relevant articles. I merely argued to introduce balance into the article, and endeavored to rewrite a couple of paragraphs a few times. That is not reversion. That is attempting to rewrite in order to have all views represented. They can feel free to use terminology and language that puts the assertions of some Dylan biographers into a well balanced context. But that is apparently what they do not wish me to do. Bus stop 18:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You weren't blocked for trying to introduce balance, you were blocked for 3RR violation. If you believe there's something to be contributed and others disagree, it should be worked out on the talk page. And herein lies the problem: everyone thinks they're bettering an article. But breaking 3RR is simply forbidden. Part Deux 18:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the article's Talk page? I do believe by word count my contribution to the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article exceeds that of anyone else's. Unfortunately, I didn't say anything about trying to improve the article. You should try to pay attention to what is said by others, before trying to respond to them. Bus stop 18:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
unblock|This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits.
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is pathetic. The reason for the block is over five hours old. The reason for the block concerns edits to one word in the lead paragraph. That is a bogus reason for blocking my edits. The real reason is because I have been, since the time of the last of the cited edits of five hours ago, been making edits in the body of the article. That is the only reason I've been reported. Those are legitimate edits and it is those edits that someone wishes to block.
Decline reason:
Your claim that if you get away with violating WP:3RR for five hours, nobody is entitled to block you is quite disturbing. — Yamla 20:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Yamla -- Are you equally disturbed that unsourced information is being written about a living person (Bob Dylan)? Are you aware of the following: all content must be verifiable.Bus stop 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Bus stop 19:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you agree to cease edit warring your block will likely be lifted. (→Netscott) 19:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
(→Netscott) -- There has been no edit warring. I use the Talk page. There has been just as much reversion by others as there has been by myself. Right now you can see an editor asserting that a blog page indicates Dylan's conversion and "born again" status. (When I look at the blog, it's guess what -- written by a born again Christian.) No one is particularly interested in what does or does not constitute "conversion." No one is particularly interested in whether a source is valid or not. They leap to conclusions that Dylan's momentary persona is the equivalent of actual conversion to Christianity. There may be some continuity between these things, and there may be a place to point that out in the article, but it calls for nuanced wording. Blatant references to Dylan's "conversion," without any balancing wording is out of place, in my opinion. Bus stop 21:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You were blocked for clearly violating 3RR. The diffs above are just some of your reverts during this period. That constitutes edit warring on your part. No other editor violated 3RR or they would have been blocked as well. Use of the talk page does not justify your behavior in any way. It does not excuse or provide a free pass for edit warring by you. However, an examination of the Dylan talk page does show that your views have been opposed by multiple editors. --JJay 21:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JJay -- It doesn't matter if other editors disagree with me. There is a rule as follows: unsourced information in biographies of living people can be removed immediately. Bus stop 21:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
It's good that you brought up rules. You should review WP:3RR. The four diffs above show that you were not removing unsourced information. You were adding a statement concerning religion to the Bob Dylan article lead. Four editors objected to that, yet you persisted in your stubborn edit warring. That is why you are blocked. --JJay 21:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
JJay -- You are correct about that. In that instance others were removing well sourced information. Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you for coming here to visit me on my Talk page. It is always a pleasure. (A pleistocene type of pleasure.) Bus stop 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the article and I understand the valid point you are making. You need to calm dowm a little bit about it. I think (→Netscott) has given you some great advice here. I'm coming to the conclusion, that I may have misjudged him - because it would certainly appear that despite all "our" differences, he's really trying to help you here. You can be as right as rain - but if you break the rules you diminish your position. I'm sure you didn't necessarily mean to break 3 RR, but that is what you did. Don't miss the forest for the trees. You can still argue your points on the page, while abiding by Wikipedia's rules. I think that you should appologize for inadvertantly breaking 3 RR and move on from here. You and I have seen far too many Wiki rules which are not enforced. It hurts when legitimate editors, like yourself, are blocked on a trivial first offense. That hurts. It's very obvious that you were engaging in legitimate talk page discussions on the matter. Unfortunately, an administrator has chosen to take a hard line approach on this matter - failing to recognize you for the good faith editor we all know you to be. Although JJay's manner and approach can be somewhat abrasive, I have little doubt that he is also trying to help you - in his own way. This, too, shall pass...Peace! Cleo123 06:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This too shall (probably) pass. Bus stop 11:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore...
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
As of five minutes ago, on the Bob Dylan Talk page, we have an editor asserting that I am acting "hypocritically." This is the second time he has made that assertion. Of course, I can't respond, at this time. But throughout our interactions I can say I have been acting civilly. I have not made any personal attacks, as he or she is doing now. Bus stop 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, busstop, I'm not trying to be uncivil when I mentioned you are asking us to provide sources (which we have, many time) while you provide no sources. My source was not "some blogger" but an article on the official bob dylan website. In any case, though, Mick Gold found a much better source, and posted it as a citation within the actual article - he also mentioned several others on the talk page. I'm sorry if you felt I was attacking you when I called you hypocritical, I didn't mean it in a hostile way. However, I was feeling pressured by your rocksolid perspective which was not supported by any external source, and to date, still isn't. all the best, SECProto 23:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
SECProto -- The following is not a reliable source: "About the time I became a Christian, in 1978 or so, Bob Dylan did too."Bus stop 01:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said, Mick Gold found a different, much better source. And as I said, Countless sources state his becoming a born again catholic. I have never seen any source state something to the contrary - except you. You need to cough up a source. SECProto 03:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That is not a source at all. Please find a source or remove the unsourced material. Bus stop 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unblock
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The Bob Dylan article is a biography of a living person. Guidelines say remove unsourced material in such cases. That is simple. There is no source saying that Bob Dylan actually converted to Christianity. The references that were in the article to his "conversion" are not supported by sources. I was perfectly understanding of a balanced approach -- indicating that some felt that there was a de facto conversion. (Not that I agree with this.) But you can see right now that on the Talk page the same assertion is being made that some blogger's reference to Dylan's conversion is a valid source for that claim. I do not believe the block against me is for the reason stated. The block against me is more likely because I was altering the article to remove unbalanced references to Dylan as a "born again Christian" and such. I do not like such point of view pushing, and no administrator at Wikipedia should countenance it either.
Decline reason:
No POV pushing is apparent in your block. The blocking admin, Nishkid64(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA), has apparently never edited the Bob Dylan article. Additionally, you did violate 3RR through your edits to the article. The dispute about Dylan's religion appears to be one of source interpretation; WP:BLP does not warrant overaggressive editing in this case. — Sandstein 05:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view.
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
"Religious conversion" is a meaningless term in the hands of proselytizers pushing their point of view. Bus stop 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Careful. "Not a religious conversion" is just as meaningless and POV... --Knulclunk 14:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
What are you saying? I can't even understand what you are trying to say.
Jimmy Wales has said:"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity:
''"Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
The above is posted by me, Bus stop. Bus stop 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The Dylan "conversion" paragraph that all the fuss is over seems quite solid as of your (bus stop) last edit, except for the statement "No actual conversion process took place", which needs to be removed. --Knulclunk 14:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Knulclunk -- There is zero source that any actual conversion process has taken place. Unless, of course, we accept the assertion of one of the editors there that it is an "internal" process, and therefore there can be no source for such a "process." Bus stop 14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That maybe so, but if there is no source for the negative either, then we should not comment on it at all.
There are sources for:
Christianity ... imagery used on such albums as Slow Train Coming (1979), and "Gotta Serve Somebody" (1980).
Some publications asserted ... Christian.[78][79]
Dylan won "Best Male Vocalist" for his song "Gotta Serve Somebody".
When touring from the fall of 1979 ... "sermonettes" on stage...
"Dylan's apparent embrace of mainstream religion irked some.
John Lennon, for example, recorded "Serve Yourself"...
But for Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner...
In the 70s he became good friends with Christian singer Keith Green...
What don't you get about the fact that this wasn't a block based on the content of the article. You violated WP:3RR, which receives automatic blocking. Period. There's a saying (to which I will not link for WP:BITE issues): If you've been told something, especially by several people in the community, it might be wise to consider the possibility that it is true. BLP doesn't apply here. End of story. Part Deux 15:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The blocking wasn't automatic. There was point of view pushing, and there was resistance to point of view pushing. Do you see any relation between the removal of Dylan's Jewish-American status in the lead and the insertion of Dylan's Christian conversion process in the body of the article? They are related. No matter how many "people in the community" you might bring to tell me the two are unrelated, I don't think it would sway my understanding of such a thing. One does not put on blinders and refuse to see what is eminently relevant. From the point that the following was posted, I made no further edits to the lead:
▪ It is not standard practice or really appropriate to reference religion in bio leads. No one here has supported your position to date. You have been reverted by a host of editors and have now violated 3RR. --JJay 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
For the next few hours I only made edits to the body of the article. I was rewriting the paragraphs to introduce some balance. The block was also related to that. Bus stop 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes...and what you are persistently forgetting to mention is that you reverted the article lead 4x in less than 24 hours despite nine talk page messages from four editors who objected to your action. See [3]. That is edit warring. It is why I reported you [4]. It is the only reason you were blocked. Breaking 3RR will get you blocked consistently. You need to move beyond the denial stage and accept the reality of your actions. --JJay 17:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that is why you reported me. I do not need to "move beyond" any "denial stage" because I do not accept that I am in any denial stage. I think you reported me because you found it frustrating to discuss the issue with me on the article's Talk page, and you did not want to make edits to the article at the same time that I was making edits to the article, and you did not like the outcome of the combined edits to the article of the other editors and myself, in the five hours that transpired from the time of my last edit to the lead and the time at which the block went into effect. I am not in denial, but perhaps you are. Bus stop 17:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Your edits to Lists of converts to Christianity
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
In your edit here, you keep removing sourced material. Have you proven that these sources are not reliable? Have you participated in the Talk page of the article? No you have not. Why do you then ask other users to use the Talk pages when you are not? I'm reverting your change for now. I'm seeing other users are having issues with you as well. --Matt57(talk•contribs) 05:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that your actions regarding this matter have been much less than completely rational. As I have stated, if you can point to any evidence in reliable published sources to rival the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times citations in place, then perhaps your contention would be one I would even support. However, without such sources, I believe that the sources already provided can be included, and should be included to ensure NPOV. John Carter 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to List of converts to Christianity, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. John Carter 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
You have also violated 3RR again. --JJay 22:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Born-again Christians don't have a formal ceremony that indicates conversion. Demanding proof that such a ceremony happened is a red-herring. The sources provided on the talk page prove that it happened. Arrow740 04:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740 -- It is not a "red-herring." All that you are arguing is that the term "born-again" is without meaning. I will not address whether the term has meaning or not. But if you are arguing that the term has no meaning, then what justification could there be to pin it on someone? It is not just the term "born again." Dylan is blithely being referred to by some editors here as a "convert to Christianity." That terminology is not being given any qualification, either. Dylan is being categorically referred to as a "convert to Christianity" by some editors here. If, as you say, there is no formal ceremony, then on what basis are we making this leap in understanding to put a born Jew on a List of converts to Christianity? You have to come up with some basis for that. Not just figurative language, but some real, hard basis for assuming conversion. Change of religion is not a light issue. Yet you seem to be arguing that such a transition occurs based on nothing tangible. I feel that if there is nothing tangible to clearly indicate actual religious conversion, and so far no editor has been able to point to anything in that area, then isn't it just point of view pushing to put Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity? And I am hardly alone in this thinking. This has been debated considerably on the Talk page of the Bob Dylan article. In fact, I've joined this debate late. It was going on long before I began participation in it. Just look at this: Proposal - Remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity, which took place long before I got here. Bus stop 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Blocked again
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on List of converts to Christianity. In the future, please solve editing disputes through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I don't think 3R applies. For an extensive explanation, please see this on my Talk page. But, in a nutshell, Bob Dylan's status as a convert to Christianity is very much in debate, not just by me, but by many. (The previous link precedes my involvement in this issue.) I endeavored to do two things, engendering this block: 1) remove Dylan from List of converts to Christianity, and 2) add language after his name indicating that no real conversion ceremony or ritual can be pointed to by anyone. (This is a fact.) I think what I did is justified. WP:LIVING seems to me to say, for instance, "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." I request that you unblock me. Bus stop 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status [is] disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Wikipedia to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Wikipedia policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Wikipedia, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop 15:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your request is much too long. Please be more concise. Admins are volunteers and have limited time, especially for a block of only 31 hours. — Sandstein 16:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
A statement from me (concerning this most recent block to my account)
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
WP:LIVING states: Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies: Verifiability, Neutral point of view (NPOV), No original research. We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel. Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and controversial in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion. Jimmy Wales has said: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." He considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity: "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia."
Given the above, why does it presently say next to Bob Dylan on List of converts to Christianity: "Bob Dylan - popular musician (current religious status disputed)?" And equally important, why is his name on the List of converts to Christianity if his "religious status [is] disputed?" Shouldn't his name at least be provisionally removed from the list until this issue is resolved? WP:LIVING seems to clearly say this. Concerning Bob Dylan, all of the editors involved in many days of discussion agree that no actual conversion to Christianity ever took place. I am stating that more forcefully than many others would state it, but in many days of discussion no editor has found any source indicating any event constituting conversion. There has been no citing for such hallmark signs of conversion as Baptism, religious ritual, public and/or formal acceptance of the new religion. All arguments have been based on the figurative use of language that is in abundance in many sources. Obviously sources are going to refer to his "born again phase" and his "conversion." But that is no reason for Wikipedia to put him in a List of converts to Christianity. (Lists and articles are different in several significant ways.) This is not just my issue, either. This has been hotly debated here, here, here, here, and here. And there are many additional places where this contentious issue has been debated. Given this atmosphere, why does Dylan remain on the List of converts to Christianity?
Here we have people using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for the recognition of a Jewish convert to Christianity. WP:SOAPBOX says: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." A list is unlike an article in a very important way. In an article more than one point of view can be conveyed. Not so with a list. A list is an either/or situation. Either a name is on a list or a name is not on a list. Given that dispute, why does Dylan's name remain on the List of converts to Christianity? Shouldn't that information be deleted immediately? Why was I blocked for trying to either alter the comment next to Dylan's name on that list or trying to remove his name from that list entirely? Isn't this issue sufficiently in dispute for at least temporarily removing Dylan's name from that list? My personal opinion is that the List of converts to Christianity should be deleted in it's entirety. My personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste. But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity.
I don't think I've violated much, if any, Wikipedia policy because of WP:LIVING, above, especially that: "Where the information is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages," and also that: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles."
While making my edits to remove and/or modify the "poorly sourced" information I also made considerable use of the Talk pages on both the Bob Dylan article and the List of converts to Christianity article. My edits have been made in good faith, to try to improve Wikipedia, and I have not spoken in an uncivil manner toward anyone. I think blocking me from editing is uncalled for, and I request that I be unblocked at this time. Bus stop 15:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for having made your own complete and utter failure to abide by NPOV clear above. I quote you above: "[your] personal opinion is that it's raison d'être is crowing over converts, so I simply find it in poor taste." Nobody really cares about your personal opinion, despite the fact that is your basic reason for your edits. In this case, your "personal opinion" and your own insistence upon acting upon it is a clear violation of WP:AGF and is inherently a violation of WP:NPOV. You don't like the Encyclopedia Britannica and the New York Times, but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source? Hello? There are proper ways to handle such disputes, and they have been enacted, not by you by the way. Personally, I have no objections to your remaining an active editor, but your clear POV in this matter makes you clearly unqualified to work with this subject. I note that the only project you see yourself as a contributor to is Visual Arts, and that you seem to have some more basic familiarity with it than with matters of religion. I respectfully suggest that you confine your future edits to subjects which you know better than you do Christianity, which you seem to be at best ill-informed about. I wish no harm to you or anyone else, but your own ill-informed and unilateral actions are what get you in trouble. Please learn from these events, and don't put yourself in the situation where your actions will get you into trouble again. John Carter 18:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- I also said, "But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity." Did you notice that?
And, what are you referring to when you say, "but a music reviewer in Rolling Stone you see as an unimpeachable source?" Did I say something about a music reviewer in Rolling Stone being an unimpeachable source? Maybe you are mixing me up with someone else. I don't recall saying that.
As for my being qualified or unqualified to involve myself in the articles and issues that we are discussing, I don't think that is for you alone to say. I notice that some other people have supported my point of view. I recall a couple of comments from others explicitly saying they agree with one point or another that I made. So, thank you for your discouragement, but I think I will participate in Wikipedia where my interests lead me. I think that is consonant with the basic philosophy of Wikipedia and also consonant with common sense. I live my life pursuing those subjects that spark my interest. Try it some time. You might like it.
One more thing: This dispute was going on long before I got here. I doubt if I've even added anything new to it. The Talk page of the Bob Dylan article is chock full of disputations concerning the placement of Bob Dylan in the List of converts to Christianity article. That leads me to believe my thoughts on the matter are not so off base. Bus stop 18:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then at least bother to learn something about those matters which "interest" you before deciding that wikipedia has to abide by your own ill-informed opinions. And try to learn something about the in-place dispute resolution process. It might even prevent you from being barred again. How many times has it been now? I would have thought that you might have learned something simply on the basis of having been repeatedly barred. Evidently I was mistaken. John Carter 18:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- I try not to carry on conversations in the abstract. I like to speak in concrete terms, so that me and the person I am talking with, both know exactly what we are talking about. I don't appreciate your attempts to berate and belittle me. But if there is a specific issue you want to address in a specific way, I would be glad to respond to you. But I think your comments are just about attacking me, rather than addressing issues. Please try to focus on an issue; please try not to make ad hominem attacks. Bus stop 19:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You're never going to get unblocked at this rate. Try and summarize your reasoning to 4 or 5 sentences. John Reaves(talk) 18:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Reaves -- I tried again, using a shorter version, but I haven't received a response yet. Bus stop 18:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"But I have not let my personal opinions guide me in attempting to specifically modify Dylan's relationship to the List of converts to Christianity."
Well, if you say so. On the contrary, you've said a few things which make your claims of neutrality in editing seem a little bit questionable. Let's take a look at some of "Bus stop's Greatest Hits":
From an edit to the article itself: "Untrue and unsourced and slanderous information should be removed IMMEDIATELY: Dylan is NOT a convert to Christianity, and does NOT belong on this list." See the diff here.
"Unsourced"... There are 9 sources listed, another which is from a Jewish site and is discussed on the talk page, there is a New York Times article (broken link, however) and there is an excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
"Slanderous"... It's slanderous to list someone as a convert to Christianity because we have 12 sources which all essentially affirm that he converted in some manner (ritually or through simple belief, most evidence to the latter), some of which go into great detail in regards to the events leading up to his conversion (change of belief), and some which detail the conflict between his new beliefs and those of his Jewish/Non-religious friends and fans. How is this slanderous? On the contrary, you have been focusing more on arguing with the sources present than adding sources which clearly and unequivocally state (as this appears to be your standard for sources) that Dylan did not convert to Christianity, and that it was simple an artist's 'persona'.
Note that it would have been incredibly simple to add a note which said "(conversion disputed)".
"We need a reliable source if we are going to say a Jew converted to Christianity."
What constitutes a 'reliable' source? Encyclopedia Britannica? Additionally, it seems here that you're most bothered by the simple fact that a Jew might have become a Christian. As if thousands of people aren't converting from one religion to another each and every day. Jews become Christians every day, Christians become Jews, Jews become Muslims, Muslims become Christians, etc. People have endless reasons for converting. It doesn't mean Judaism is inferior.
"Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity."
Ah, yes. I remember at our last J.C. (Jew Conversion), trumpets were blown, hymns were sung, and we spent the rest of the weekend throwing a festival in light of the occasion. Please.
I'm sure many Christians consider it a triumph for anyone to convert to Christianity, as do Muslims consider it a triumph for anyone to convert to Islam, and I'm sure many other religions, including Judaism, consider it a triumph when someone "finds the truth".
Your characterization of Christians makes it quite clear that you have probably had bad experiences with insincere or fanatical Christians. I could be wrong, however.
"I don't think we should be pushing the untenable point of view that Christianity has won a victory over a Jew as concerns the world to come or any such nonsense (my opinion)."
Once again, you are characterizing Christianity as being very simple and antagonistic. My last girlfriend was very, very Jewish, but I could care less whether or not she converted to Christianity, even though I make attempts so that we can understand each other's faiths. I (and most other Christians) are not on any sort of crusade to "defeat" Judaism, nor do we view faith and religion in such simple terms.
"Reliable sources are required. Most of the sources provided are Christian sources, or they are secondary sources. They are mired in the agenda of proselytizing."
From WP:NOR:
"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them...
An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, constitute secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, verifiable, published secondary sources wherever possible....
Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases)."
Secondary sources are actually preferred. Additionally, a site is not unreliable simply because it has a religious bias. The site itself must be assessed independently from that assumption. As you claimed the sources were unreliable, I presented them for everyone to see on this talk page, so that we can assess which sources are actually unreliable and remove them.
You seem to believe that any Christian source cannot be trusted, as it is "mired in the agenda of proselytizing". It seems that you believe that any Christian that contributes to or runs a website is mainly concerned with warping facts in order to gain more converts.
Using that logic, simply because some Muslims vandalize and remove large sections from Criticisms of Islam in the interest of improving the appearance of their religion, we shouldn't trust any Muslim editors. After all, anything they write is probably "mired in the agenda of proselytizing", right?
"He was born a Jew and firm evidence should be required to dislodge him from that status, even temporarily."
This applies to any person converting to another religion from their birth religion. You seem to feel that Judaism is a magic religion which holds on to its adherents with an iron grip. You surely remember that 'Jew' is not only a religious term, but also a cultural (or racial) one. Many of the Jews I know are hardly religious, and I've spoken to many who participate in many of the rituals and celebrations, but do not even believe in a 'personal God'. This doesn't mean that they are no longer culturally 'Jews'. Many Jewish Christians (Messianics and such) believe that they are still Jewish, culturally and often even religiously. To them, there is no real conflict between their Christian and Jewish beliefs (I believe one of the sources states that this was Bob Dylan's belief).
For us in the Jewish community, anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief [he] has placed [him]self outside the Jewish community. Whether [he] cares to define herself as a Christian or as a 'fulfilled Jew,' 'Messianic Jew,' or any other designation is irrelevant; to us, [he] is clearly a Christian."[1]
As there is a wide range of beliefs in the religion of Christianity, we must adopt a general definition if we are to accurately maintain the List of converts to Christianity. Many Christians would not define Catholics as 'Christians', and yet there is (of course) no dispute on whether or not they should be included in this list. So must it be for "Jewish Christians", Judaizing Christians", and "Messianic Jews". The shared belief in Jesus as the Christ, and as the last messenger of God, or as God himself, makes these people Christians. I include the second part of that definition to exclude Muslims, and since not all Christians believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation, that can not be a guideline.
"There are accountings of his re-involvement with Jewish rituals such as attending upon regularly recurring holidays of the Jewish calendar, since that time."
It seems clear that you didn't read the Jewsweek (a Jewish newsletter) source which includes apologetic passages explaining that many Jewish Christians still participate in Jewish festivals and ceremonies. If this was a Christian publication, you would undoubtedly claim that it's apologetic stance on your above assumption was "mired in the agenda of proselytizing"... am I correct?
From the Jewsweek article:
Even Mitch Glaser, the man who distributed gospel tracts for Jews for Jesus at Dylan's 1979 shows in San Francisco, wasn't disturbed by Dylan's presence at such a special event: "Well, first of all, the fact that he attended, or paid for, or encouraged his son's bar mitzvah, this would be normal for a Jewish dad. The fact is, there's a real bad presumption in all this: and that is that when you become a believer in Jesus, you don't have a bar mitzvah. And that is really, for the most part, false. I mean, I had a bat mitzvah for my daughters, and I would say lots of Messianic Jews [Jewish believers in Jesus] have bar mitzvahs for their kids. And so that's not disturbing at all."
"In keeping with the nature of religion it would involve ritual. All of those factors are absent from your conveniently vague standards for conversion to Christianity."
Phrases like that make it seem as if we editors are somehow conspiring with each other to intentionally use ambiguous sources to 'pump up' the list. Yes, I suppose Dylan's personal quotations about Jesus being the one who saves, or his quote about Jesus being the only way to God are conveniently vague enough for us to 'insidiously' slip him into the list. Please assume good faith.
Additionally, it has already been argued by myself and others that not all of Christianity is ritualistic, and some do not even require any outward "expressions of faith". Many non-denominational Christians do not even think it is necessary to go to church, and some Christians believe (quite erroneously, in my opinion) that no change of lifestyle is required, by incorporating the beliefs that "salvation is by faith alone, not works" and that "salvation cannot be lost".
"We do not assume a Jew converts to Christianity. We assume the opposite. We are only swayed to accept that a Jew has converted to Christianity when standards of conversion have been met."
Again, this should be more general. We do not automatically assume that anyone has converted to any religion. It seems that you are assigning preferential standards for Judaism. This, essentially, makes Judaism seem superior to other religions. It is like the case of Abdul Rahman, where many considered him mentally incompetent because he would not renounce Christianity in the face of the death penalty. In this case, Islam is viewed as superior, and anyone willing to die for Christianity must be considered 'insane'. This is a rather ridiculous assumption. By expressing such strong disbelief that a Jew could convert to Christianity, you make the same basic assumption that the Afghans do: that one religion is superior, and conversion from it is hardly believable.
"Jews have been willing to lose their lives rather than convert to Christianity, historically. Therefore our assumption has to be that conversion has not taken place, unless reasonably convincing evidence to the contrary can be brought to the table."
Welcome to Christianity 101: The Martyrs. This doesn't mean that we should scrutinize claims of Christians converting to other faiths simply because "Christians have been willing to lose their lives rather than convert to another faith, historically".
The argument against preferential assumptions applies here as well. Interestingly, "reasonably convincing evidence" is a rather misleading, unclear statement, as many of the other editors as well as myself find the evidence "reasonably convincing". You happen to be the one who applies increasingly high standards in your disbelief, despite the presentation of more evidence which we happen to find "reasonably convincing"
"The Church is an institution. It has ways of accomplishing tasks. Dylan is a Jew. Stop pretending he converted to Christianity. That is advocacy."
We've already been over the fact that Christianity is not monolithic. As it stands, it is several, if not many, institutions, and it has a large variety of ways to "accomplish tasks". As stated, many churches and individual believers do not even belong to any of these official 'institutions', and do not adhere to the strict guidelines for "accomplishing tasks". I use to belong to one of these churches.
And again, you need to assume good faith. We are working off sources which we believe contain "reasonably convincing evidence" that Dylan was, in fact, a Christian- if only for a short period of time. And considering that you've spent much more time arguing against our "reasonably convincing evidence" than providing evidence of your own, it seems that we aren't the ones 'pretending'.
"It is preposterous to list him as a Christian convert, and it is abusing Wikipedia for advocacy purposes, which is against WP:SOAP."
Preposterous? We believe we have "reasonably convincing evidence". We are acting in good faith. We are not conspiring to trick people into converting to Christianity by listing their 'hero' on the List of converts to Christianity page. Additionally, you assume that the editors who are in opposition to you are Christians with the interest of proselytizing.
"No reliable, high profile publication, makes note in a straightforward manner of the religious conversion of such an eminently newsworthy person."
What is 'high profile'? Jewsweek? New York Times? The Encyclopedia Britannica?
How would it "make note in a straightforward manner"? Perhaps it would explicitly say, "he converted"?
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "In a dramatic turnabout, he converted to Christianity in 1979 and for three years recorded and performed only religious material, preaching between songs at live shows."
"If Encyclopedia Britannica got it wrong so be it."
Apparently, the Encyclopedia Britannica's researchers found "reasonably convincing evidence" for Dylan's conversion.
"The articles of the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopedias."
It's too bad we'll have to part from the conclusions reached by Encyclopedia Britannica in favor of Bus stop's expert analysis.
I'm not claiming that the Encyclopedia Britannica is never wrong, but I find it hard to believe that from amongst a "staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors", not a single one has run into claims similar to Bus stop's. It is almost certain that they have, and it is almost certain that they found sufficient evidence to consider Dylan's conversion as authentic, if only for those few years.
Please assume good faith in our edits. There is equal reason to assume that you are advocating your position, rather than acting in a neutral fashion. --C.Logan 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop, please come down from your pillar of rectitude!
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Much to my shock, I see your name pop up at the community sanction noticeboard, which is generally reserved for persons of ill repute. Since you had the good sense to vote on the same side as me in a recent AfD debate, I figure you must have judgment and excellent personal qualities. So why are you out of control in the matter of Bob Dylan? I actually agree with you on Bob Dylan, but violating 3RR is a good way to go downhill fast. Please learn how to work the system, it's not that bad, and if we didn't have 3RR we would be in chaos. Please calm down for a bit and then try to find people who have common sense on the Dylan matter; there are probably thousands of them out there. EdJohnston 20:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
EdJohnston -- 1) You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
2) What AfD debate are you referring to? I don't recall.
3) It certainly sounds like some want to silence dissent.
4) By the way, if you agree with me on Bob Dylan, why don't you express that in the discussions on the two relevant pages? Bus stop 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
To speak in the "concrete" terms you prefer, there are many recognized churches, the Salvation Army among them, which do not have the formal ceremony of admittance which you seem to believe is an absolute requirement for describing someone as a Christian. On that basis, your entire argument along those lines collapses. This is why I told you that you might like to actually know something about a subject before pontificating about it. Evidently, however, you prefer to just revert sourced content from others, including from what are generally regarded as the most reliable sources extant, if they disagree with your own expressed preconceptions. Frankly, I cannot imagine that there is any further point in communicating with you, and think that your repeated failure to observe wikipedia policies, WP:3RR primary among them, may well make the point moot in any event. Good bye and good day. John Carter 20:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Why do you make all of the convenient assumptions? Aren't you conveniently assuming that only the factors that support your case apply? Isn't it as likely that a different Church than the one you are assuming was involved in the supposed Bob Dylan conversion? This is an encyclopedia. We deal in facts. We rely on verifiability. And where differing or conflicting information exists, we make allowance for that. Are you going to make the argument that whether we know or not these relevant facts that nevertheless Bob Dylan should be included in the List of converts to Christianity? Bus stop 21:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Bus stop 21:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Artist Jew Christian Dylan
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Is this just an issue involving Christians? Or does this involve Jews as well? How about artists? Do you think it might not involve artists as well? Who are you to say that an artist, a performing artist, can't assume the identity of a Christian without it constituting conversion?
[concerning]User:Bus stop.Maybe this doesn't belong here, but I don't know where else to take this. The above user above has been blocked from editing three or four times now for three reversions of content on pages related to Bob Dylan, specifically regarding his conversion to Christianity in the late 1970's-early 1980's. Sources for that conversion include the Encyclopedia Britannica and New York Times and a published book of his own Christian statements from the stage. He cites "absence of a high profile publication is clear proof that no conversion took place." Evidently none of the above qualify, and in his eyes absence of evidence is clear prove nothing happened. User seeks to see some evidence of a formal sacramental initiation into Christianity, evidently not knowing or caring that several branches of Christianity do not use such practices, or perhaps believing that those Christians should not be classified as such. User has also questioned the good faith of editors seeking to insert such sourced material, using phrases such as "His Jewish heritage doesn't go out the window because he felt like exploring Christianity in 1979", Request user be blocked from editing the pages Bob Dylan, List of converts to Christianity, and List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians, as those three pages would seem to contain the only content which causes him to engage in these repeated reversions and other POV matters, that being questions about Dylan's conversion to some form of Christianity. User:Name removed by me 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)''
Isn't is a contrivingly narrow approach to take to the entirety of this issue? Why is this only being portrayed as an issue involving Christians? Isn't that a pretty narrow approach? Contrary to what is asserted above, I've argued for only one point: that Dylan be removed from the List of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 00:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Copied from Community Sanction Noticeboard:
I believe User:Warlordjohncarter account of events is somewhat misleading. For the most part, I have merely been watching this dispute from the sidelines. I, myself, also questioned the information in the article a few days back because the primary source for this information appeared to be a blog. The New York Times reference has only recently been added (after Bus stop's 1st block) thanks to his persistent requests for citations. It seems that User:Bus stop is legitimately concerned with WP:BLP issues. Editors on the "converted Christian" side of the fence seem to be perpetuating a possible misconception in the article, which seems to have struck a nerve with User:Bus stop. He seems to feel that he is addressing a libel issue that is exempt from 3RR. Regardless, he has behaved improperly and I do not defend him on that. I will say, however, that this is shockingly out of character.
I am concerned by User:Warlordjohncarter's statements above. Having followed these discussions, I find it very implausible that JohnCarter accidentally misrepresented User:Bus stop's block history. User:Bus stop has created a lot of work for the other editors by challenging their position. I can understand why they might want him - or his view - blocked from the page. I do not see User:Bus stop's request for evidence of a formal sacramental initiation as at all unreasonable. I'd like to see some myself! I know of no branches of Christianity that do not require converts to be formally baptized in Christ. It is a fundamental part of Christianity required by all denominations. User:Warlordjohncarter has taken User:Bus stop's statements out of context portraying him in the most unreasonable light possible. I know User:Bus stop to be a very rational and civil editor by and large. He was a significant contributor on the highly contentious Michael Richards article and is most capable of working productively and positively within the community's guidelines and policies. Hopefully, he will take advantage of this block as an opportunity to calm down."
It looks like you're becomming the subject of a witch hunt. Is it really worth it? Maybe you should step back from this a little bit and chill? Just some friendly advice. Peace, Cleo123 02:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, besides non-denominational Christian communities and individuals (which lack any unified structure and are heterogeneous in their beliefs), one such denomination which does not practice baptism is the Salvation Army. The Baptism page also notes that "a few Christian groups assert that water-based baptism has been supplanted by the promised baptism of the Holy Spirit, and water baptism was unnecessarily carried over from the early Jewish Christian practice."
My old (non-denominational) church held baptisms, but no one was required to take part. I never took part in any real statement of faith, and I considered myself a Christian then. No one argued with me.
Of course, the Salvation Army functions like a military organization, so there is some sort of conversion process. However, it is important to note that this denomination, which has over 100,000 adherents (according to their 2006 yearbook), does not see baptism as a necessity, nor do they encourage the practice of it. --C.Logan 02:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Cleo. My primary objection is that Dylan should not be on the List of converts to Christianity. I do not know if the alleged conversion is valid. But neither does anyone else. The impression one gets when one sees a name on such a list in an encyclopedia is of veracity. Truth. A list is an either/or type of thing. You are either on the list. Or you are off the list. That is what a list is. It is black and white. I have seen no one come up with a shred of evidence that any transition from Jewish to Christian took place. I've heard the lyrics on Slow Train Coming cited as "proof" of conversion. I've heard a dictionary definition brought forward as similar proof. I've heard Dylan's "sermonettes" between songs cited as constituting conversion. This is what people do not come to Wikipedia for. In fact, all of that is original research. As soon as Wikipedia goes out on a limb and speculates about something that it is not sure of, all of it's principles go out the window. Neutral point of view is immediately gone when you speculate about things that you simply have no way of knowing. A list implies truth. An article can include shades of grey. A list can not. In the article on Bob Dylan there is much more leeway to deal with the "Christian" period in Dylan's professional career, and maybe even in his life. But without a subject meeting a fairly high standard of verifiability for conversion, inclusion on a list is unwarranted. There are really lots of reasons to believe no valid conversion took place. One of which is that there was no Christian life lived. Is there any indication Christianity had any bearing on his life after the supposed conversion? But I am admitting I don't know. To me it is clear that the editors arguing for the validity of conversion don't know either. What I hear in the guise of arguments is mere conjecture. That argues for removal from the list. Bus stop 03:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that's incorrect. As we are citing secondary sources which claim that he converted, this is not Original Research. Secondary sources are almost universally preferred on Wikipedia, as the usage of primary sources often leads to OR.
Also, it's interesting that one of you arguments against an actual conversion as that there is no real change in lifestyle, in the long term anyway. Let's go through the list then, and assess the lives of each person. We should remove each person who's lifestyle doesn't seem to reflect their change in religion. Oh wait, that's absurd. This is List of converts to Christianity, not List of converts to Christianity who actively practice their newfound religion.
It is indisputable that at least some of these people (if not many) included in this list don't actually live lives which reflect their religious change. Some may have only converted for marriage reasons, or for political reasons (as is supposed with Carlos Menem). That's not the point of this list. If someone has at one time professed belief in Christ as their savior, and/or has gone through a conversion ceremony, they are considered 'converts to Christianity and will be listed here, regardless of whether they converted out of the religion a week later, and regardless if they are still practicing. The same applies to all other religious pages listing converts.
I hate to be involved in this dispute. It's quite lame, but I must insist on my viewpoint until you can convince me otherwise. Show me sources, and hope that I don't reject their reliability as you have for the sources we've presented. Unfortunately, though, even if you do provide sources for insincerity of conversion, he'll likely remain on the list as a disputed conversion. After all, we're only supposed to express what the sources themselves say- not make judgments about them. If we have sources that say he did convert, and you actually bring sources that say that it was just an entertainer's act, that simply means we'll have to compromise. --C.Logan 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think Dylan would laugh like he does on "Bob Dylan's 115th Dream" if he witnessed this discussion. He is obviously not one to be boxed in. Why is he being put on a list of converts to Christianity? Do you really think he subscribes to the basic tenets of Christianity? He performed onstage in a reasonable facsimile of a Christian. But does anyone really think that he therefore should go on a list of converts to Christianity? Especially without any formal conversion process? And why are some people making an argument that only applies in some cases? Even if some Churches do not involve formalities in the conversion process, how does anyone know that Dylan was involved with such a Church? Isn't it equally likely that he was involved with a Church that did involve Baptism or other formality, and that he politely declined to go through with the entirety of the process? Isn't that possibility equally likely? Bus stop 03:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
From what the sources actually say, he was involved with the Vineyard church, run by Kenn Gulliksen. Here's a page which provides information.
Additionally, this source actually says that Bob was baptized by one of Gulliksen's assistant pastors, but I have no doubt you'll refuse to recognize this source. I would like to find other sources which stated the same, but this is at least one which states that he formally participated in a ceremony.
Even if this source is unreliable in your opinion, and is removed from this discussion, it should be noted that I've refused baptism every time it was suggested. My family and friends had brought it up several times, and each time I gave a non-answer to the suggestion. However, I did consider myself Christian. The fact that I refused baptism laid more in my old opinion that it wasn't truly important in comparison to the faith itself. I don't mean to bore you with dull history; I'm only expressing that refusal of baptism does not constitute disbelief. --C.Logan 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds as if your own involvement with this denomination may constitute a conflict of interest that might be coloring your point of view. Cleo123 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm no longer a member of that church (I'm actually rather against it's tenets, now). I'm simply stating that it's silly to make the assumption that the refusal of baptism guarantees disbelief, as it doesn't- and I myself can testify to that fact. I can assure you that my religious affiliation has little to do with my persistance in the argument- I just feel that the viewpoint shared by myself and several others is correct. Now if you'll excuse me, my cereal is getting soggy. --C.Logan 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Gaming the system
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Bus Stop,
You don't seem to want to answer any of my questions over on the List of notable Christian converts, so until you do, I will assume that you are just gaming the system for the fun of it over there and that you really understand the Wiki rules on documentation and the Christian definition of conversion but just want to see how far you can get away with leading them around on a wild goose chase over there before they all realize that, that is what you are up to. Ciao.
Hi Scott -- I didn't know you had a question. What was your question? And I don't know what "gaming the system" is. I don't know if "for the fun of it" characterizes my participation in and contribution to Wikipedia, but there is nothing wrong with plain enjoyment, is there? I think my intellectual compass is accurate, but I am always due for a check up. There is no devious joke I am perpetuating on you or anyone else if that's what you're suggesting. I try to stay happy and have fun but I consider my endeavors serious. My participation in the discussions that you've been a part of has been a serious and sincere participation. Somehow I don't think "gaming the system" or "fun" are exactly the most appropriate or descriptive terms to apply to me. But hey -- everybody else has criticism of me too, so you are entitled to express your criticism to me -- any time. Thank you for visiting me here in my lion's lair. Bus stop 10:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Scott, check out the policy on no personal attacks. Whoever can win on that Talk page using the best arguments, not the best insults, is likely to gather the consensus on what to do. EdJohnston 12:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Apparent POV
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This is an exact quote from you on the Talk:Bob Dylan page. "Christianity considers it a triumph to convert a Jew to Christianity. Judaism does not proselytize, but Christianity does." I fail to see how these statements are in any way relevant to the content of the article, or even what the other editors concerned with the content of the article are discussing. Regretably, your own intransigent position regarding your own clearly undocumented position, and other statements you have made on this and the Talk:List of converts to Christianity page, have made it increasingly obvious (and please note that an obvious statement is not in all cases necessarily the most accurate one) that you are yourself approaching this from a pronouncedly POV position. Were you to provide any sort of substantiation of your own claims (such as Dylan's "assuming a persona" such that he had to preach a religion he didn't believe in from stage), these reservations regarding your conduct I and others have might be alleviated. Directly responding to points which might seem to contradict your own position might help as well. As is, however, your own contributions to the discussion seem to be very little more than endless reiteration of previous statements, with no direct responses to the comments of others, and are I think, on that basis, of very little use in furthering the discussion. Having said that, I do think that I and the other involved editors would be interested in having you or any other interested party take part in the discussion if their new statements in any way, shape or form actually contributed to the discussion, and were not simply rehashings of previous statements. John Carter 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Let me just add that I feel that many of Bus Stop's copious talk page postings are filled with statements that violate WP:Talk, namely: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. The quotes above are flagrant examples. Repeatedly using talk pages to argue a POV position crosses the line into WP:TE. Per that essay, we are not here to "right great wrongs" and the standard at wikipedia, per WP:OR is "verifiability, not truth". I would strongly encourage Bus Stop, if he intends to continue participating in talk page discussions, to support his comments with references, rather than unsubstantiated opinion. JJay 15:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Bob Dylan and Christianity and Judaism
Latest comment: 17 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion
Hi BusStop,
I agree with you completely. It appears to me that Bob Dylan practices Judaism in a personal way, and doesn't really care what everybody else in the world thinks. He maybe flirted with Christianity for a few years, and why not, but there is no evidence that he was baptized, or that he had a formal return to Judaism later on. Whatever he does, he wants to do it privately. If I ran into him at Kabalat Shabbat this Friday, I would say Shabbat Shalom to him, but I wouldn't come back here and tell you about it (or anyone else), even though I've been involved in this argument. I would just want him to have his privacy.
However, if he came up with a new melody for Lecha Dodi, I would try to learn it from him, and I would tell you that some "mystical guy" I met last Friday was singing it.
I kind of started this by starting the debate a month ago. I feel like I upset a hornet's nest, and I almost don't know what I can do for you here, except to say that what people on Wikipedia decide doesn't determine in any way what Bob Dylan is. Only Bob Dylan determines that.
I'd say take a breather and work on something else in Wikipedia for awhile. That's what I always do when I come up against this kind of mishegoss. Metzenberg 05:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Metzenberg, please check the sources, both internet-based and published, which are in agreement of the details leading up to his conversion and mentioning his baptism. We are not drawing things from the text here- the sources say these things. I have not seen any source presented by Bus stop which has denied his baptism... unless Bus stops words count as a 'source'.
Yet again, this is not a list of current Christians. If Bob was on the List of Christians, the argument would be much more sound, and I would be inclined to agree with his removal from that list. The list in question is for converts to Christianity, regardless of continued devotion. The list includes a disclaimer to clear up confusion in this matter, which I feel is redundant, considering that any converts who later left the religion would have this clearly indicated in their entry.
"what people on Wikipedia decide doesn't determine in any way what Bob Dylan is."
That's true. The sources themselves decide what Bob is. And the sources agree that Bob became a Christian in 1979, through baptism. He may have returned to Judaism later- this seems likely. However, he is not included on the list because 'he is a Christian', but because 'he converted to Christianity'. Not only that, but the event was widely publicized and criticized. Many fans rejected the new Bob and his musical changes. This conversion is more notable than most because of the uproar it caused, both positively and negatively.
If Bob is Jewish now, than I am happy for him. I would go to temple with my ex-girlfriend, and her dad would make me read the English reading during celebrations. I wore the (loaned) hot pink yarmulke, and in spite of this, enjoyed the services. Judaism is a wonderful religion and has a wonderful culture behind it. No one is denying Bob of his Judaism. The article has clearly stated his perceived return to this faith, although Scott Perry's recent edit has re-worded this. --C.Logan 17:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
So it sounds to me like the debate has turned into a question of whether the list is one of people who "are" christian, or people who have "ever been". It's just my opinion, but it seems like Dylan's Christianity was about a 2-3 year phase, about the length of one relationship. Does Dylan also belong on a list of Christian apostates because he no longer practices Christianity? I don't think he belongs there either. There are a lot of religioun seekers who try out everything, going from one faith to another. I have met Jews who are both ex-Christians and ex-Muslims or ex-Budhists. I'm sure some of them will later become ex-Jews too when something new comes along.
Yesterday, I authored some new material tangential to this whole debate by writing a new page on Larry Yudelson, the Jewish publisher and blooger who created the Dylan Tangled up in Jews page. Now you'll know who he is. --Metzenberg 19:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It may have been a phase, but it's certain that he had enough of a belief in it to fully convert. Several of the people on the list may have only converted for political reasons (such as Carlos Menem), and they may not have had true belief in this faith. However, that's not really up to our judgment. The sources say that these people have converted, and therefore we must take the sources' word for it.
As far as Dylan belonging on a list of apostates, it's questionable. Has he publicly renounced Christianity in the same way that he was converted into it? If sources can be compiled for the fact, then I would say he does belong on such a list. --C.Logan 19:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
The "sources" for any Baptism for Dylan are flimsy at best. The source is one individual who says he doesn't know where or when the supposed Baptism took place. That source says it took place at some point in time over several days, and "probably" in the "ocean." That qualifies as gibberish. Obviously no witness to any such "Baptism" has been found. Bus stop 19:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Dylan is a Jew by way of having been born a Jew. His mother and father were Jewish. He need not "renounce" anything. He does not have to convert to Judaism. Bus stop 19:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right. I forgot the policy which state's that multiple published sources hold less weight than Bus stop's assertions. Additionally, as I have said several times, the fact that location is unknown does not mean it did not happen. I can know that my friend was married, without knowing where the marriage took place. Your assumption is fallacious. Additionally, it should be noted that only two of the published sources available are used. User Mick Gold has explained to me that many of the books he owns contain conversion evidence (though he was not clear about what they said), and I have two or three more books on my list which still must be looked at.
Additionally, Dylan's cultural Judaism has never been denied. The way you are using it in a religious sense is like saying that "since Muhammad Ali was born to Christian parents and was raised Christian, he does not have to convert back to Christianity to be a Christian again. He does not have to renounce Islam to be a Christian again." I don't think that any Christians or Muslims will consider that assertment valid.
Please present sources which support your viewpoint, and your assertion will sound a little less ridiculous. And, holding you to your own standard, be sure it says "Bob Dylan was never baptized", clearly and explicitly. --C.Logan 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, you need to calm down. I am beginning to think that it is you, not User:Bus stop who is in need of a Wiki break. Multiple editors have now stated that your "source" for the baptism is a flimsy and unacceptable source. The murky self published statement of someone with an obvious agenda is not acceptable under Wikipedia standards. For goodness sake, your primary source is some sort of a newsletter! Notable publications reiterating the fact that this pastor said this, do not make the pastor's statement true. This can be adequately addressed in an article, but not on a list - which reads as a statement of fact.
Your hostile statements towards User:Bus stop are unwarranted. You are apparently very proud of the fact that you dated a Jewish woman, however, your remarks indicate a profound lack of understanding of the Jewish faith. Bloodlines are extremely important in the Jewish religion. Because Dylan is born of pure Jewish blood, he is, was and will always be a Jew. User:Bus stop is dead on when he says there is no need for Dylan to convert back to Judaism, for one cannot "renounce" their blood. If, for example, a Christian woman converts to Judaism - her children are not truly considered Jewish. She and her children may practice Judaism, but Jewish blood must pass through the maternal bloodline for an individual to be considered a true Jew. That is the point User:Bus stop is making and perhaps that is why Dylan's inclusion on this list is so offensive and improper from a Jewish perspective.
I really don't understand why his inclusion on this list is so important to you. Your admission of a prior involvement in the Vinyard Church, leads me to suspect that there is an editorial bias on your part, whether it be a concious or unconcious one. The man is a practicing Jew. You have yet to produce any evidence that he "renounced" Judaism - only that he briefly embraced Christianity. Cleo123 23:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
But as I understand it, even "briefly embracing Christianity" is sufficient cause for inclusion in the list. Please inform me why this should not be the case. I also note that the preponderance of the evidence, including Dylan preaching Jesus from the stage and several contemporary reports, make it clear that he did in fact embracing Christianity, which is the sole criteria, as I understand it, for inclusion in the list. Please illustrate specifically which point of logic you are using to justify the conclusion that he had to "renounce Judaism" to embrace Christianity. John Carter 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Cleo, I think you should re-check that. The sources for baptism are 2 books, both of which are widely published and well known, from what I can see. Make sure to take a look at the sources before you make a statement like that. Additionally, if by "multiple editors", you mean "Bus stop", then yes, multiple editors have called these book sources "flimsy at best". I'm going to assume you mean the first-listed sources, as we are discouraged of using primary sources on Wikipedia.
I don't know if you noticed, Cleo, but whether or not he is 'culturally' Jewish, or Jewish by blood, however you'd like to term it, he can still become an apostate. As I've quoted before, according to the Central Conference of American Rabbis:
For us in the Jewish community, anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate. Through that belief [he] has placed [him]self outside the Jewish community. Whether [he] cares to define herself as a Christian or as a 'fulfilled Jew,' 'Messianic Jew,' or any other designation is irrelevant; to us, [he] is clearly a Christian."
Therefore, it should be clear that faith in Judaism is not solidly linked to Jewishness. It seems clear to me, considering this, that mere expression of Christian belief is akin to renouncing your Jewish faith, if only to this council of rabbis. However, this is really not a big part of the argument, as it doesn't really matter what Dylan is now, considering the criterion.
The criterion for inclusion on the list is clearly defined at the top of the list:
The following is a list of people who have at one time converted to Christianity.
Important note: This list is known to include some individuals whose initial conversion experience may have since lapsed or reverted. Inclusion on this list is not necessarily an assertion that an individual continued to practice as a Christian throughout his life after his conversion.
Cleo, it troubles me greatly to read this, and I almost laughed at how clearly you show that you're not paying attention to what I'm saying:
Your admission of a prior involvement in the Vinyard Church, leads me to suspect that there is an editorial bias on your part, whether it be a concious or unconcious one.
Please show me where I said I was involved in the Vineyard Church. I told you I was involved in a non-denominational church. At what point this came to mean "Vineyard Church" to you is beyond me. If you'd like to know, I used to go to Flamingo Road Church. Please make sure you don't draw the wrong assumptions from the text before you make accusations.
Finally, don't assume my tone from the text alone. I'm unsure why you seem to think I'm getting hot-headed about this.--C.Logan 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My impression that you have a previous involvement with the Vinyard church is based upon your admission on April 28th:
It sounds as if your own involvement with this denomination may constitute a conflict of interest that might be coloring your point of view. Cleo123 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm no longer a member of that church (I'm actually rather against it's tenets, now). I'm simply stating that it's silly to make the assumption that the refusal of baptism guarantees disbelief, as it doesn't- and I myself can testify to that fact. I can assure you that my religious affiliation has little to do with my persistance in the argument- I just feel that the viewpoint shared by myself and several others is correct. Now if you'll excuse me, my cereal is getting soggy. --C.Logan 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you mis-speak?
As for the two books, I have not seen them and cannot verify what they say. I am concerned that information has been twisted and taken out of context to support a POV here. I believe you yourself, have previously listed 7 editors who disagree with your point of view. Based on his comments above, it looks like you can add Metzenberg to your list. He, himself, acknowledges initiating this debate - not User:Bus stop, who has become a bit of a scapegoat here. Let's try to keep article related discussions on the article's talk page. Cleo123 02:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is. When you accused me of my affiliation interfering, I was assuming you meant my involvement with a non-denominational church. Take a look at the whole thing:
From what the sources actually say, he was involved with the Vineyard church, run by Kenn Gulliksen. Here's a page which provides information.
Additionally, this source actually says that Bob was baptized by one of Gulliksen's assistant pastors, but I have no doubt you'll refuse to recognize this source. I would like to find other sources which stated the same, but this is at least one which states that he formally participated in a ceremony.
Even if this source is unreliable in your opinion, and is removed from this discussion, it should be noted that I've refused baptism every time it was suggested. My family and friends had brought it up several times, and each time I gave a non-answer to the suggestion. However, I did consider myself Christian. The fact that I refused baptism laid more in my old opinion that it wasn't truly important in comparison to the faith itself. I don't mean to bore you with dull history; I'm only expressing that refusal of baptism does not constitute disbelief. --C.Logan 03:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It sounds as if your own involvement with this denomination may constitute a conflict of interest that might be coloring your point of view. Cleo123 06:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I was speaking of my own former church, which doesn't pressure anyone into baptism, and doesn't consider it essential. This was brought up in response to Bus stops assertion that 'to be a Christian, you must be baptized', which isn't true... I was pointing out that my church has never forced it upon anyone, and many people choose to remain unbaptized, as it is seen as soteriologically unimportant. It's unfortunate that I didn't clarify when jumping from one subject to the next.
Additionally, feel free to check the sources, the text of which is posted here in fullness. --C.Logan 02:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cleo. It's good to see you. You are always welcome to post on my page. I think you spoke one thing in error though. I am not an expert, but I think a Christian woman who converts to Judaism has Jewish children. I believe you were mistaken when you said that her children are not Jewish. In point of fact her children would be Jewish. Bus stop 00:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You'd think, wouldn't you? There is apparently some difference of thought on this between conservative and reformed jews. My own experience proves that not to be the case. (I consider this a personal side bar - as it has no direct baring on the article, so I see no issue with "original research".) I am of mixed heritage, myself, and a maternal break in bloodline several generations back has created issues for me. A rabbi indicated to my former fiance, that my children would not be "true" jews due to this break in the maternal line. Go figure! I guess it depends who you talk to. I've heard the opposite as well.
As long as we're discussing religion, I know that I was among the multitude of people who accepted a gohonzen in the 80's. I think I'd have a fit if I ever found myself on a list such as "people who converted to Buddhism." LOL! I'm not sure Bob Dylan's situation is all that different. LOL! Cleo123 01:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's exactly the same thing, Cleo. That is why it is proselytizing. It is simply for the purposes of promoting Christianity. That is why I want him (Bob Dylan) off the List of converts to Christianity. It is such a contrivance to say that it is a list of anyone who ever converted to Christianity. That does not make logical sense. Why not make a list of anyone who ever converted to Christianity while wearing a yellow hat? How about we create an article on all those who ever converted to Christianity while wearing a red hat in a yellow taxicab? All that they are doing in order to proselytize for Christianity is concoct weird parameters that don't make natural sense. It is just a contrivance. A list that makes sense (and it is seriously debatable if any such list makes sense) is a list of "all those who have come to Christianity by way of conversion" (as opposed to being born Christian). That is a logical category. That is not a contrived category. The contrived category that they are promoting is precisely in order to capture Dylan and people like Dylan in it. Another thing they are in violation of is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. That says that "That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The unnatural category they've created captures indiscriminate information. That Dylan had a fling with Christianity 25 years ago in no way makes him a "convert to Christianity." The whole category is a contrivance. I think it constitutes an abuse of Wikipedia. Promotion of religion on Wikipedia annoys me. I guess it is just one of my pet peeves. Bus stop 03:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"That is why it is proselytizing. It is simply for the purposes of promoting Christianity."
No, it isn't. This list is for reference. His conversion is notable. It was the watershed moment which began his "Christian phase", and caused a wide variety of reactions from both critics and fans.
It's amusing that you aren't getting so riled up about the fact that the list of vegans includes people who no longer practice veganism. Is this simply for the purpose of promoting veganism? No, it is for reference. It is notable that these people were once vegans, and it is notable that Bob Dylan went through the conversion process and became a Christian. If I'm not mistaken, books have been written about this conversion and the ensuing change of style. Documentaries have been made. The man converted to Christianity, officially, through baptism, according to at least two books, widely-available- and this is still considering that I have yet to finish my source-seeking at the bookstore. You have provided no source which claims that he had not. You have no sources that claim that he was not baptized. Please provide these, and I will respect your argument much, much more.
I have company over now, so I'm sorry to cut this short. I'll finish it later. Have a nice night, Bus stop & Cleo. --C.Logan 04:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As the above note seemed to "jump" over my direct question to Cleo, I repeat it here. Please illustrate specifically which point of logic you are using to justify the conclucion that he (Dylan) had to "renounce Judaism" (to use the phrase you used) to embrace Christianity. John Carter 00:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be misinterpretting my statements. I will respond on the article's talk page. I think too many issues related directly to the article are ending up on User:Bus stop's page. Cleo123 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Christian proselytizing shouldn't be pursued on Wikipedia. That is exactly what the inclusion of a Jew in the Christian List of converts to Christianity is all about. The proselytizing is accomplished by including a prominent and charismatic and, importantly, Jewish man on the list. That is advocating for an idea, in clear violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. It is just a contrivance that the proselytizers have defined the parameters of this "list" to retain on the list living people who clearly are Jewish. Too bad Wikipedia is being diverted to this narrow religious end. Bus stop 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Your logic is incredible! Including a person who became a Christian and then left the religion is an endorsement to Christianity? Considering that the article states at each person their current religious affiliation if it has changed, and considering that the article clearly states at the top that the article only lists conversions to Christianity, not continued adherence. Considering Bob's drastic changes following his conversion, it's undeniable that it's notable for both his own noteworthiness and for the results of his conversion (which you continue to debate with your special "I don't need sources" pass).
Only an idiot would convert to a religion simply because Bob Dylan did the same, especially when Bob Dylan apparently did not continue in this religion. His entry is as much of an endorsement to Christianity as using the List of ex-Christians is an endorsement of Christianity. --C.Logan 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop, this statement, "Christian proselytizing shouldn't be pursued on Wikipedia. That is exactly what the inclusion of a Jew in the Christian List of converts to Christianity is all about" is proof that you are not yourself approaching this discussion in good faith. On that basis, I very strongly urge you to cease from further comments based on your existing POV, as you are completely and utterly failing to assume good faith on the part of any other editor involved in the discussion and clearly using your own point of view as the only relevant matter, again without any sources cited, yet another rule of wikipedia, that I can honestly say that you have demonstrated a disregard for the rules of wikipedia. This blatant demonstration of your own lack of objectivity is I think sufficient cause for you to recuse yourself from any further discussion of this matter, before you once again cause further action that I believe we would all find regretable. John Carter 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
John Carter You may want to read that statement again because I stand behind every word of it. Bus stop 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It makes little sense to judge our inclusion of Dylan when you are basing it on your own criterion. You already know the criterion for inclusion, and yet you disregard our criterion and use your own to criticize us and call us advocates. We make the criterion clear to the reader so that there can be no deception. Also, please take a note that the article is called List of notable converts to Christianity.--C.Logan 21:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan -- There is a Talk page here. Apparently you are not using it. Do you like my Talk page better? Did I invite you here? Bus stop 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
However, talk pages are according to policy primarily there so that individuals can exchange ideas and comments regarding wikipedia which may not be appropriate to a given article. I thought you already knew that. And, certainly, the majority of your, dare I say repetitious(?) comments which you have insisted on placing on both the page you referenced and the Talk:Bob Dylan page, certainly make it clear that you are very interested in at least talking to others. And please note that the editor you are criticizing has actually contacted others regarding on their talk pages regarding how to deal with what I think might be fairly described as your apparent intransigence. Considering that the question really seems, at least to me, not regarding the fair content of the article, but your insistence that the article conform to your own apparently pre-existing opinion, this actually is the appropriate place to discuss it. John Carter 00:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame you feel that way, Bus stop. You're always invited to stop by my talk page, if you'd like. Not much entertainment going on there, I'm afraid. --C.Logan 01:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for catching problem in cave painting article
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Wow, I've never seen such a massive discussion on a user Talk page. I see EdJohnston appeared here. Befriend him. He's really balanced in his judgments. Anyway, thanks for catching the problem in my revision to the cave painting article when I deleted "however" according to the guideline on words to avoid. See if you think it reads okay now. TimidGuy 15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Great. Thank you for saying hello. I think EdJohnston is a cool enough cat. I need all the friends I can get. Feel free to stop back. Yes, I checked into that cave again. It looks OK to me. And I'm glad to know the circuit is complete, in the sense that you did further work on the article after I did a little adjustment to it. What goes around, comes around. I can't think of anything else to say, so, take care. Bus stop 15:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sticking to your guns
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for that Barnstar. I really do appreciate it.
I find it especially interesting that they think they can get away with this. I can try to turn away from this subject, but I can't. It is the inherent injustice that stays on my mind. There is an inherent bias. It is built into their chosen criteria. Do they think no one will notice this? You can't contrive parameters. Either parameters have a natural existence, because they arise naturally, or you had better have a very good reason for deviating from natural parameters. That is the way I see it. Deviation from natural parameters would certainly require an explanation. Yet there has been no explanation forthcoming. Do these editors seriously think they can foist their tailored parameters on others without the need to explain their out-of-the-ordinary choices? Natural parameters I think calls for a list of all notable Christians who came to Christianity by way of conversion. That is a description of a set of naturally arising parameters that I think would suit the sort of page that this is. But the editors involved in this list have introduced a series of parameters at variance with the ones I just described. In their opinion it should be a list of all those notable people who have ever converted to Christianity. Why that set of parameters? To get Dylan on the list? Any other reason? Are they interested in presenting those Christians with a non-Christian origin? Or are they interested in showing off all those who flirted with Christianity? If they are interested in displaying for the world to see, all those who ever flirted with Christianity, then they are advocating unnaturally for Christianity. That is the introducing of a bias. That is deception. That is misleading. That is a farce. That is attempting to present something that isn't true. That is abusing the context of the list. That is misusing the list. There is a Bob Dylan article on Wikipedia. That is where the Christian phase in Dylan's life can be presented to the viewer in a context that is sufficiently descriptive. "Disclaimers" are not sufficiently descriptive to provide the Christian phase in Bob Dylan's life with an appropriate context. The reason the editors have resorted to posting disclaimers at more than one point in the list is in order to right clear wrongs. The list is wrong, as presently configured, and it has got to be changed. The criteria are a contrivance. The editors should change the criteria. They will have a more elegant list. I've suggested basic, unadorned criteria above. The editors can devote their energies to explaining this phase on the Bob Dylan page. But bias is never to be tolerated. Wikipedia espouses a neutral point of view, and we all should uphold that. We all should honor that. That is an essential beauty of Wikipedia. The article as presently configured is in violation of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Dylan has no place on a list of converts to Christianity. I hope the editors involved will take this action to remove him from the list as a first step to remedy this problem.
Thanks again for that Barnstar. Bus stop 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Present preoccupation
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm presently involved here, in the Bob Dylan/Christianity/Judaism debate -- light stuff. Bus stop 16:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I just came around to look and see what had happened with the Dylan/Convert issue. I see that his name is no longer on the list. Does that mean this thing is over with! (Sigh of relief!) --Metzenberg 23:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Does this mean that there is a revert war going on? Ugh. Check out the page Apostasy on the issue of which Jews to include. --Metzenberg 01:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for mediation
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
By the way, it should be noted that additional terms can be placed in the proposal above, provided that other parties agree to them. If you should have any should additional data you want to input, please make comments to that effect on the talk page of the request form. I for one will certainly serious consider any such proposals; however, I cannot categorically say I would approve of any additional stipulations in advance, so request that any additional requests be discussed in advance. I am sure any reasonable additions will be quickly consented to. John Carter 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
A short letter to Bus Stop
Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
Hey there buddy. Your attitude towards everything related to bob dylan is pretty negative. I would just like to ask you one question (and you may answer it here or on my talk page). Can you show me a source about "bob dylan's return to judaism" which you speak of so much? I am not very involved in this whole ordeal, I am simply a guy who like Dylan's music. I would like to know whether he ever did return to judaism? It's out of interest, although if you could provide such a source, everyone involved would enjoy this whole dealio much more.
Dylan "returned" to Judaism in 1982.[5] There is no question that Dylan experimented with and explored Christianity in the late 70's. The question is did he formally convert to Christianity? Dylan himself is vague on the subject, the tenatious editors on the otherside of this argument repeatedly present the flimsy self published testimonial of a pastor with a very transparent agenda. Their other sources are either unavailable online or are simply secondary sources that rehash the pastor's remarks. I don't think anyone disputes Dylan's exploration of Christianity, however, to say that he formally converted is taking it one step to far, and adding Dylan to a list of Christian converts is inappropriate, considering the quality of their sources. Cleo123 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd be astounded if Bus stop attempted to use this, considering that the reason I took a trip to the book store to transcribe three of Dylan's biographies was that Bus stop would not allow the submission of 'biased sources' (i.e. Christian sources). I intend to hold Bus stop to the same standard. Additionally, the sources at present (including those from Jewish sources) lean towards the belief that Dylan remained in contact with Jewish parties from a Christian perspective. If you could present a non-'biased' source which would claim the same, preferably a published source, then I would be willing to take it into consideration.--C.Logan 06:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe User:Bus stop has made it clear that your trolling remarks on his talk page are unwelcome. I, too, have made it quite clear that I have no interest in engaging in any dialogue with you as I consider you to be a disruptive and tenacious editor. I would suggest that you take a look at WP:STALK and stop harrassing people. Cleo123 06:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Trolling? I was simply here to point out the above, saving Bus stop valuable time which would be wasted by suggesting a source of a similar caliber that he has repeatedly rejected. --C.Logan 07:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
NO You are harrassing both User:Bus stop and myself. If you persist, I will report you. Cleo123 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I find the above comment from Cleo 123 inflammatory and not at all supported by the evidence. Advising someone of the standard of evidence one would seek to require is, from Bus stop's own actions, apparently clearly acceptable. Also, considering Cleo123 has already made a blanket comment in this discussion which is specifically contradicted by the existing evidence, which is probably at best not the best indicator of good faith on that party's part, I think it might be appropriate if such inflammatory statements as the one above are avoided, until and unless specific evidence to support them is provided. John Carter 15:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, at the time I made the above statement, I had clearly asked User:C.Logan to stop leaving me messages. I made it very clear on the article's talk page that I had no intention of engaging in any further dialogue with him, yet he has continued to bother me. Likewise, User:Bus stop had told User:C.Logan that his remarks were unwelcome on this talk page. Bus stop has since changed his position, however, my remark was entirely appropriate at the time it was made. What is inflamatory, is User:C.Logan behavior. He continues to follow editors from page to page inserting himself into discussions with others, at break neck speed. (Indeed, he appears to be monitoring everything related to Dylan nearly 24/7.) In my opinion, his tone is one of harrassment and intimidation. His edits, like your own, appear to be geared towards silencing dissenting opinion, by making editing as unpleasant as possible for those who oppose your view.
As for your repeated complaints about the "blanket statement" I made. When I said that "I believe we all agree that a formal conversion, includes baptism" - I did so in good faith. I had not noticed that your hairsplitting remarks disagreed with that view. I suppose I should have said "all of us except User:Warlordjohncarter". My appologies. This is not the first time you have mentioned this. I am sorry that this minor oversight on my part has caused you such tremendous upset. I assure you the remark was made in good faith. Unfortunately, you and your views are not at the top of my radar. Perhaps, you should get over yourself and stop trying to manufacteur conflict with others.
I believe that there is an inappropriate gang mentality among the editors on your side of this argument. Your own failed attempt to have User:Bus stop banned from editing the article is shockingly hostile and inappropriate. My goodness, the article's talk page included blatant remarks in which an editor proposed a conspiracy to set User:Bus stop up for a 3RR blocking. I think the editors on your side of the fence are completely out of control on this issue, and you ALL are in need of a break, as you have become increasingly uncivil and to my mind - disruptive. I sincerely hope that an administrator will take a serious look at the actions of editors on your side of this dispute. To put it plainly, you have not played fairly at all. Cleo123 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- No, it is not inflammatory. It is supported by the evidence. It is based on my having said to C.Logan that I did not invite him to my Talk page. It is a non-issue. Please stop making a mountain out of a mole hill. Bus stop 15:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Regretably, Bus stop, I think that you may be once again trying to set your own opinions over and above the policies and procedures of wikipedia. These talk pages are not by "invitation only", as you seem to be implying, but intended as a place where other interested editors can discuss relevant content with editors which may not be appropriate for article talk pages. Please stop trying to rephrase the policies and guidelines of wikipedia in such a way as to defend your own position when they in fact do not do so. John Carter 17:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Yet another uncivil distortion of facts by User:Warlordjohncarter. Perhaps, he also needs to familiarize himself with WP:HARRASS. That, too, is a Wikipedia policy. Cleo123 23:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
John Carter I implied nothing of the sort. Perhaps you require a very explicit statement from me: All editors are welcome to post on my Talk page. Is that OK? Bus stop 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I thank you for asking the question, and giving me this opportunity to lay out some of my thoughts.
First of all the notion of conversion to Christianity has little inherent meaning. It has no meaning. This is not according to me. This is according to the editors of this article who apparently feel compelled to find Bob Dylan among their "converts to Christianity." They themselves have argued that a person becomes a Christian by the slightest of means anyone can enunciate. They themselves have argued that one becomes a Christian merely by "showing up." Bob Dylan has been said to be a Christian merely because he sat down with a Christian priest for a learning session. By this notion of conversion merely investigating Christianity constitutes conversion. The proponents for the notion of conversion to Christianity are playing fast and loose with terminology.
I don't have to provide a "source" for Dylan's "return to Judaism." I do not speak of Dylan's return to Judaism. I have never used such locution. Dylan's abiding religion is Judaism. By my reasoning he need do nothing to "return to Judaism." The Church has been shown to be a vacuum, as far as "conversion" is concerned: To set foot into it is to become a Christian. Don't get me wrong -- I've got nothing against Christians. But we've seen that the flimsiest reasons constitute conversion, in the eyes of those who clearly have an agenda to get converts. Since the threshold for conversion is so nonexistent, what meaning is there to your suggested notion of returning to Judaism. "Easy come, easy go," no? It would seem to me that if all you had to do to become a Christian was to "step into the Church," then all you have to do is step out of the Church to "un-become" a Christian. So, by my reasoning, and I think it's quite sound, the 27 years spent without an iota of involvement in Christianity is more than ample evidence that he is not a Christian. Does it take much mental gymnastics to say that if he's not a Christian, then he is a Jew? I think a person has to have an agenda to, at present time, insist that in Dylan you have a "convert to Christianity." I think the whole notion is absurd.
Anyone can post on my Talk page. Cleo, thanks for speaking up on my behalf to C.Logan concerning my previous indication concerning his posting on my Talk page. At that time he was only using my Talk page, not the article's Talk page. I did not like that. That's why I acerbically said that I didn't invite him here. But that need not stand. Bus stop 15:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply Bus Stop. May I ask just a question to clarify something for myself? I agree, he experimented with Christianity and it may not be known whether he converted or not - this isn't really important, it only really matters for the question of whether or not he should be included on that list. This isn't important to me. And I understand, his relationship with Christianity has most definitely diminished if not disappeared since that time. But the question I have regards your statement of "if he is not a Christian, then he is a Jew." I am truly curious how this happens. Undoubtedly, he is a Jew in regards to his ethnicity and culture. But why should his religion revert back to Judaism when he stopped exploring some other religion? I think Judaism is much more than that. But I am truly curious why "if he is not a Christian, then he is a Jew," and eagerly await your response. SECProto 14:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Over the years since his profession of faith
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"profession of faith" = POV? Not really. --Knulclunk 23:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Representing Judaism in the right light
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Dear Bus Stop,
If you were to spend only half of the energy that you are spending on the Dylan debate, in other more positive ways to represent Judaism, such as editing articles about the many great acts of Jewish heroism, generosity and kindness, throughout the centuries, perhaps you would accomplish more positive results with less effort.
-Scott P. 12:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
PS: Perhaps starting and editing an article on Jewish mitzvahs of kindness might be helpful. At present there is no such article, and I think one might be in order. -Scott P. 14:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Mediation
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As you are no doubt aware, the discussion on the List of notable converts to Christianity has formally ended. You have through the 11th (7 days after filing) to accept the case, or it will automatically be rejected. Should that happen, I would think that WP:ARBCOM might be the next step invoked should there be any further attempts to alter the article substantively, certainly from the end of those who wish to include Dylan and possibly from the others as well. You should note however that that body has the right to put down any decision they like, up to and including banning an editor. On that basis, I believe your best next step would be to accept the mediation. And, on a similar note, it is my personal belief that your own presentation of your case might not be the best possible presentation, particularly since you only rarely cite any sources for your arguments and then only in the vaguest possible way. I think you might benefit from having one of your allies in the discussion to help prepare the "case" for you, as it were, particularly in the matter of citing specifics of existing policies and guidelines which you think might be being impinged upon. John Carter 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to pursue the mediation route, I'd be glad to assist you in preparing your argument. I don't think I'd be the best "spokesperson" for you, however. I think I've had too many heated exchanges with the other parties and that might be held against you somehow. It seems to me that User:Metzenberg or User:Modernist would be ideal. They both strike me as wise and level headed. You might want to ask them for help.
Then again, you may just want to ignore their request. You are not edit warring on the article and nominating the List of notable converts to Christianity for deletion, not only had merit - but support. Your argument may not always have been expressed in the most rational manner, but you did ultimately formulate a valid policy based argument with merit that was recognized by others. On the surface, it looks like they may be pursuing a vendetta against you. Sure does sound like he's trying to intimidate you here. Seems like he's saying : "If you edit the article - I'll take you to ARBCOM. Interesting, since you have not been blocked from editing this or any other article. Upping the anty by moving to WP:ARBCOM may backfire and reflect very badly on them. Cleo123 06:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I notice the above party is once again jumping to conclusions. Personally, I honestly have no interest in either article per se. As indicated on my talk page, I came to the discussion at a request from others, and have primarily participated in it on the basis of trying to defend what seem to me to be "reliable sources" for biographies of living persons as they are currently referenced in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I personally have no real interest beyond that. The reference to ArbComm above was simply to point out that if any further action is taken by anybody (and I don't think it would be me; I personally hope to never see either article again in my lifetime once this discussion and my adding references to the list is done; they really are both outside of my own area of interest and expertise), that that step to ArbComm might be the only step they can take at that point, and, given your own previous history of 3RR, the people at ArbComm might jump to conclusions on that basis. They are after all only human, and people do make mistakes. I do think that the above party is possibly more emotional in this matter than is necessarily called for. I guess the question for you is whether you want to pursue the matter at all once this discussion is formally concluded. If yes, then I think following the steps outlined by wikipedia for resolution are the way to go, and this seems to me to be the next step as outlined by policy and guidelines. I have been reading up on them lately, as I've never actually dealt with them anywhere before that I remember. And, to repeat what was said before by me, I think being able to point specifically to exactly which policies or guidelines you are referring to, rather than simply mentioning the page in question, would really help any outside party in their achieving whatever decision they come to. John Carter 13:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A request for arbitration involving yourself has recently been filed. Please feel free to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Bus stop and make any statement you believe appropriate. Thank you. John Carter 14:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Warning
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please stop edit warring. You were recently reported for a 3RR violation at List of notable converts to Christianity. The report was inaccurate, as you had only reverted three times; however, I considered blocking you anyway (remember, the 3RR does not entitle you to three reverts, and you may be blocked for revert warring even if you revert three or fewer times). I'm only not blocking you because I have stopped the edit war by protecting the article. I warn you that if you continue to edit war, rather than discussing with others, you can expect to be blocked, whether or not you technically violate 3RR. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 03:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL!
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hey!
I'm not sure whether or not you noticed, but BD is not on the locked version of the list! LOL! I'm cracking a good bottle of Merlot to celebrate! Of course, I still want to get the contrived parameters to the article addressed. These folks are out of control and there's no telling how many other celebrities could become their next libel victims.
You may want to respond to the warning above. Looks like there's some confusion between edits to "Christianity" and "Christian list" templates. It didn't look to me like you were even close to 3RR. JJay just won't give up, will he? Ah, Wikipedia... Cheers! Cleo123 05:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe they mean three times I thought about editing the article. Bus stop 08:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL! Have you seen this? Seems like vandalism of your comments to me. I just noticed it. Thought you'd want to know. I find it very amusing that they see JJay as a legitimate editor, as opposed to what he is - someone who is just following us from article to article. Cleo123 08:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
It is vandalism. It reminds me of book burning. There is a concerted effort to silence dissent. It is really profoundly saddening. It makes the experience of editing Wikipedia distasteful. Instead of it being an uplifting experience, the experience is more like being in a war of attrition. Bus stop 08:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Editing talk pages. Be careful when editing other peple's talk.
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Never edit my (or I guess other people's) article talk page edits as you did with [6]. I don't care if I made spelling mistakes or other indent errors really just never edit talk unless it is to remove clear vandalism. Technically I indented it the way I did so that the introduction sentence and the "no,no,no" were left and the list was indented. This (as with much of what I write) is deliberate. Ttiotsw 21:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I only wanted to make the section better, visually. Sorry, I didn't realize you wanted it a particular way. Please accept my apology. Bus stop 22:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I didn't correct spelling or alter words in any way. Indentation is all that I altered. I still apologize, but it was only indentation that I altered. Bus stop 12:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
...or altering article talk pages. Your edit, [7] was already replied to by others so that they are now out-of-context. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments and ideally use strikeout. Ttiotsw 23:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Seen this?
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
So, have you seen this little gem? I think it's really time to begin cataloging all the personal attacks. Ignoring all the violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA only seems to embolden them. I think it's time to consider a formal complaint. Any thoughts? Cleo123 23:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:KETTLE. Perhaps you should take note of your own comments first, friends. --C.Logan 00:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, again, I'm going to suggest you take a look at WP:STALK and WP:HARRASS. I know I haven't engaged in name calling and personal insults. I don't think that editors on your side of dispute can say the same. Cleo123 00:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have- have you? What point, specifically, do you feel that I am at odds with from the article you cite? Do you consider my response disruptive? As it should be clear, I'm merely pointing out that your own perceived incivility and borderline personal attacks are noted by readers. If you would like to make such a complaint, I'm sure that several other editors will gladly follow suit in regards to your own comments. Therefore, I'm saving you the trouble by pointing out that you may want to take note of your own statements, which to many users are clearly personal attacks. I'm not defending other users- I'm merely pointing out that the pot should not call the kettle black. I'll leave you now, if you really prefer, but please- cease being so quick to accuse others. --C.Logan 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you obviously haven't read these policies too closely. If you had you wouldn't still be following people from page to page, encouraging vandalism as you did here, and interjecting yourself into other's conversations in a manner that can only be catagorized as flaming. You have been previously warned about this sort of behavior. Sorry, you consider my comments "borderline attacks" - I'd catagorize many of the comments from editors on your side of the argument as very blatant personal attacks.Cleo123 01:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, you appear to be misreading diffs. Note the text of my comment. I'm referring to the passage, not the change of title. As for "following someone around", I think you enjoy to stretch the text to your own benefit. Note that I've only "followed you around" to the talk pages of editors directly involved in the discussion, and I've responded to your comments on article talk pages which are directly related to the discussion. I would suggest taking the whole text of the guideline into consideration and noting the examples given- there is no need to play up a tame response on an editor's userpage (an editor who you are, in fact, involved in a rather long-running discussion with) as "stalking" or "harassment". Additionally, it's nice to know your opinion regarding the statements of other users. I would suggest you take a while to relax. Good eve. --C.Logan 01:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Cleo -- I consider reference to mad hatter to be of a mildly antisemitic nature, given the subject matter under discussion. But I am sure (or at least I would assume) that such anti-Jewish intent would be denied. Mad-as-a-hatter has historical applicability and use, and is certainly not always of an antisemitic nature. So there is ample room for deniability. The Bus -tards reference would appear to be an attempt to make fun of my name, Bus stop. I'm not really hung up on my name Bus stop, so I can dismiss people playing with it's spelling and linguistic construction. It is certainly in violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Having said that, I think the important point is that it is indicative of the underlying problems concerning the misuse of list of converts to Christianity, which is, after all, what this whole problem is about. There is a lack of rationality in that discussion that is only confirmed in the above examples. Bus stop 15:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And now it inevitability starts -- the race card. I had a feeling this was going to come up eventually. Bus really has room to talk. He has been anything but civil. Drumpler 13:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes,Drumpler, the above is in reference to the following edits, onUser:C.Logan's Talk page:
Trying to reason wtih the mad-hatter
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Suggestion: Don't waste any more of your time knocking your head against the wall, the wall that is Bus Stop. Until he provides real documentation, we have no need of indulging him with our time, there is no use wasting any more of our energies trying to convince him why Wiki requires documentation. He is apparently on some sort of a religious kick, trying to defend what he believes to be his native religion at the expense of even logic itself. Logic demands documentation, not opinion. There's no point in trying to reason with the mad hatter, it will only make you mad.
By the way, thanks for letting me know about my excessive re-edits. I'm trying to work on that.
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The Purple Star
This award is designed for those who have been injured or insulted by others for less than good reason. Given the amount of work you and another have both put into a certain page whose content is regularly being vilified by a certain "mad hatter", I believe this slight recognition has been more than earned by both of you. Keep up the good work, and don't let the "Bus"-tards get you down. John Carter 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What is the issue that you take with my commentary in relation to the above two posts? I believe there may be more commentary of this sort, but I am not inclined to look for it.Bus stop 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The Mad Hatter is also a character in Alice in Wonderland with zany attributes. I doubt that much research went into that comment and I'm sure its in reference to the character. You've made several indirect accusations of anti-semitism on the article's talk page also. All such accusations do in the end is make you look unprofessional. Drumpler 18:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Mad Hatter also sounds like a reference to the Jewish propensity for head coverings on males. The yarmulke is the traditional male Jewish religious head covering. Hats are also used for this purpose. Bus stop 19:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That's quite a stretch. Let's not misconstrue names and concepts which have a common definition. If this is what you took from John's statement, then I apologize on his behalf, but it seems fairly obvious that he's referring to the character from popular culture. --C.Logan 19:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan -- It seems fairly obvious that it is antisemitic in nature. Bus stop 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ironically, it would seem that your implication of racism on John Carter's part only serves to give some credence to his actual intention in using the term Mad Hatter- that you are irrational and largely unfamiliar with reasonable thought and argument.
Could Mad Hatter be considered a personal attack? Sure; he's pretty much calling you 'an irrational nut'.
Could it be construed as a racial/ethnic/religious slur? No, it couldn't, save by an individual who is all too eager to feign victimization and play the 'race card'.
Am I accusing you of doing just that? No, but your eagerness to transform a relatively benign insult into a racial/religious slur makes your reasoning questionable. --C.Logan 02:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And let me guess, "Bus"-tards is also really not so bad. I just have to learn to see it in a better light. Bus stop 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A Private Conversation?
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey!
I'd like to talk to you - away from prying eyes. I'm not sure if you are open to that. If you'd like to talk off-wiki, go to "my preferences" (top right}, enter an e-mail address and enable e-mail from other users. If you're not cool with this, I totally understand. It's all good, either way. Let me know what you think. Peace, Cleo123 08:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cleo123 -- I believe it's set. Bus stop 11:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Please e-mail me when you get a chance. I would love to talk to you away from the prying eyes of others. Bus stop 18:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What's your problem?
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Seriously. Why are you so possessed with keeping Bob Dylan's name off the list, even when a list of former converts was added later? It borders neurosis, in my opinion. Drumpler 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler -- That is your characterization of me. That is not my characterization of myself. In point of fact, I oppose contradictions. In point of fact, I oppose contrivance. In point of fact, I oppose low standards.
In point of fact, I oppose the use of Wikipedia to promote religion in an article with the use of contradiction, contrivance, and low standards. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's (List of notable converts to Christianity) Talk page.
And please stop edit warring. You have been doing far too much of that. Please try to use the Talk page of the article to articulate your point(s). Bus stop 15:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Given that many of your contributions deal with the subject above, I thought you might be interested in knowing that there is a group devoted to working on those articles. John Carter 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You may be able to help
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
How come you didn't participate in the survey?--Sefringle 20:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's not required to participate, and I see his position on the matter. Sr13 10:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Sefringle -- There is no mediator. A person would have to be nuts to participate in a charade that is stacked against you. The "mediator" is mediating between what and what? From the very start and every step along the way he was driving towards the one and only one conclusion he had in mind, and he finally just said that he sees no reason why someone who is not (not any longer) a Christian should not be on the list of converts to Christianity. Well, if that is the opinion that he holds, then how is he a mediator? What is he mediating between? I think he should be blocked for 48 hours for wasting everyone's time. I think he should be blocked for the amount of time he made this pointless mediation process go on. What he did is totally ignore what was the issue, namely the placing of people who are not any longer Christians on the list of converts to Christianity. That is a charade that just wastes everybody's time, and the term mediation is not even applicable. When you don't take one side of the issue into account you have done no mediating. Bus stop 20:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
Latest comment: 16 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion
Deleting the section under dispute at List of notable converts to Christianity screams disruption. The appropriate thing to do would have been to continue the discussion on the talkpage. You chose not to do that. I've blocked you for 48 hours.--Isotope23 13:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
A mediator is held to a higher standard than an ordinary editor, as concerns neutrality, for instance. My argument has not been addressed by this mediator. This mediator is apparently assuming my argument has no merit. This mediator from the start has only followed a line of reasoning that ignored my argument, instead concentrating on far less important "issues." Mediation of this quality is worse than no mediation. Bus stop 14:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are operating on the assumption that your argument, simply because it is your argument, automatically has to be assumed to not only have merit, but merit significant enough for you to keep making it. As has been suggested to you before, your own case would be clearly and dramatically improved if you would bother to point toward specific policies or guidelines which you believe have been violated, and exactly how they were violated. Otherwise, you give no real evidence to support your own position, and you cast yourself as being someone motivated by emotion, which you have displayed more than once, rather than by reason. The latter would be demonstrated by citiing specific policies or guidelines which you believe have been violated, and how they have been violated. To the best of my knowledge, despite being asked to do so repeatedly, you have yet to do so. You might take advantage of the opportunity this block gives you to try to search through the various policies and guidelines and maybe produce some tangible substantiation for your positions. John Carter 14:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Actually it is the "Christian" position that is motivated by emotion. It always has been. The emotion is insecurity.Forced conversion is the need (emotional) to have Jews endorse Christianity. I think it is the out of control emotions of some editors loosely associated with the Wikipedia Christianity project that have the unmanageable emotional need to have a charismatic Jew endorse Christianity -- even if that endorsement was only temporary. That he (Dylan) found it (Christianity) attractive for a moment is felt by some editors (loosely associated with the Wikipedia Christianity project) to assuage their insecurity. Contradiction is not permitted on Wikipedia, or in most settings where rationality is valued. You have a list of converts to Christianity. On it should go Christians. No, you will not convince me that it is the list of "all those who have ever converted to Christianity." That is just a contrivance to get Dylan on the list. Try to contain your emotions. Array the list with the Christians that you find who meet the parameters. Those parameters are that they be notable, and that they have arrived at their Christian identity by way of conversion. Please don't put non-Christians on the list, and please don't put Christians who were born as Christians on that list. Only put on the list Christians who arrived at their Christian identity by means of conversion. Wikipedia may not have yet articulated a policy against contradiction. At bottom you are contradicting yourself when you put someone who is not even a Christian on a list of converts to Christianity. Maybe Wikipedia didn't formulate a policy that seemed so obvious as a prohibition on self-contradiction. Self-contradiction is nevertheless not permitted on Wikipedia. I hope you can control your emotions. You can believe in your religion without needing the endorsement of Jews. Bus stop 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I note that once again you are making an apparent "response" which has nothing to do with the original comment, and going off on a tangent. I stated that you might take this opportunity to try to find reasons acceptable by wikipedia to substantiate your position. Your response was to raise further unsupported allegations about others. This ongoing failure to observe any sort of etiquette on your part is one of the reasons your own statements are not given the respect you believe they deserve. The other, of course, if your failure to ever supply substantiation of your positions. If you wish to continue in the sort of circular arguments that you have indulged in to date, feel free to do so. However, if you want anyone to actually expend any effort in trying to follow your arguments, it is incumbent on you to try to make your position easier to understand and to view as relevant. The best way to do so is, as I said, to cite specific rules and guidelines which support you. If of course you wish to continue in the sort of behavior that has gotten you blocked three times to date, you are of course free to do so, for as long as you are permitted to do so. I once again ask you to use the time given you to try to establish a sound case for your position, clearly based on policies and guidelines, rather than continuing to indulge in the unsubstantiated and emotional behavior you have displayed to date. See you in 48 hours or so. John Carter 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Previously John Carter issued this whole series of veiled and vague threats against Cleo123. Bus stop 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Indicating to someone that their actions are very likely a violation of policy and could potentially lead to their being blocked is something most people would not consider "threats", rather "warnings to cease offensive and unacceptable conduct." Maybe you could try to understand the difference. It might help you avoid the situation you are now in in the future. :) John Carter 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Both sides believe that there is a valid complaint to bring against one another. Cleo often mentioned that she felt the behavior of other editors warranted a reporting of this type. I believe you've actually just emphasized John's fairness in allowing her to issue her complaint first. This action would be a severe handicap to John's complaint, as the first to present a case typically lays the groundwork to which other testimonies will be compared and scrutinized. In this sense, Cleo was given a head-start by John. Would you rather he didn't? --C.Logan 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan, I admire you're desire to believe the best in people. However, I think you are being very naive in this case, having completely misplaced your trust. I will point out that it is not uncommon on Wikipedia for banned editors to re-invent themselves as new users for the sole purpose of revenge. I have no intention of filing any "complaints" against the user in question, as that is what he would like me to do. That alone should strike any thinking person as odd. I know full well who this user is, and I would hope that his trumped up arguments against me would send off alarm bells to any truly thinking administrator.
C.Logan, you have been with this argument from the outset and I would ask you to sincerely consider, whether Bus stop started out presenting a seemingly irrational argument - or - was he harrassed and attacked to the point that he may have become a bit overly defensive? Please, put yourself in Bus stop's shoes for a moment. I would also suggest that you take a long hard look at your pal's user page if you'd like to gain some insight into the true character of this "saintly" editor. Cleo123 07:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Just what do you mean by referring to me as a "Bus"-tard and a "mad hatter," as in below:
The Purple Star
This award is designed for those who have been injured or insulted by others for less than good reason. Given the amount of work you and another have both put into a certain page whose content is regularly being vilified by a certain "mad hatter", I believe this slight recognition has been more than earned by both of you. Keep up the good work, and don't let the "Bus"-tards get you down. John Carter 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Can John explain what he means by the above fanciful references to me? The above, by the way, is a present given by John Carter to C.Loganhere. Bus stop 04:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It is behavior like this that has made this problem so intractable at List of notable converts to Christianity. Most editors who disagreed with the article have been scared away by deliberate intimidation tactics. I noticed as soon as I tried to introduce changes to this article over a month ago that there was a dedicated pack mentality guarding this article. This article does not receive general traffic on Wikipedia. The reason why this small clique has been able to force the Jew Dylan onto the List of notable converts to Christianity is because this article exists in the shadow of the Wikipedia Christianity project. It is there that a devoted group can pervert Wikipedia's purpose and slander Jews in general. I have seen it happen that several editors came here and made their statement that what this article was doing was improper but then they left because opposition was so mean-spirited and dedicated. Even some people who supported their side have left citing as the reason that the atmosphere was too hostile for them to stay and participate in. Bus stop 21:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That in no way justifies immediately firing the first salvo in an edit war as soon as the article is unprotected. If you have an issue with the mediator than that is something to bring up on the article talkpage (which it appears you already have), the WP:RFM talkpage, or WP:ANI. At the end of the day I don't particularly care if this information is in the article or not, what I don't want to see though is editors revert warring rather than discussing.--Isotope23 14:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The discussion had not closed and still hasn't been closed. Dylan's name should not have been added back on to the list when the mediation had not reached a conclusion. Bus stop did not "fire off the first salvo in an edit war" - the editor who reinserted the material did. He probably shouldn't have reverted it without talk page commentary - but he is not the instigator. I believe that the editor who reinserted the material while it was clearly still under debate should be blocked. Cleo123 08:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
No, Cleo, I have to partially defend Isotope23. What he (Isotope23) is referring to is the moments after he (Isotope23) unprotected the article, I removed the "section" containing Bob Dylan. In defense of myself I feel that there is so much underhandedness, incivility, poor quality "mediating," that this process at this article is a mess. Bus stop 09:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder how this editor (administrator) thinks my edit differs from the many times other editors have added Bob Dylan or in other ways made a mockery of what the List of notable converts to Christianity should be? That was not edit warring, but this is edit warring? Bus stop 22:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion at this point any edits to add remove Dylan or the section by any editor without a consensus formed by discussion on the talkpage is disruptive edit warring. I wasn't aware of the pissing contest that was happening at this article until a few days ago.--Isotope23 00:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Isotope23 -- Why is Bob Dylan back in the article? I get blocked for 48 hours for taking Bob Dylan out of the article and someone else puts him back into the article? And what is this crap that was just added:
"Please note that the word '"Jew"' carries both cultural/ heritage and philosophical/ belief connotations. This article is intended to address only the philosophical/ belief connotations of the word."
The above is antisemitic crap. It is totally point of view. It represents Christian antisemitism. It has no place in this article. And furthermore, it is more reason why the List of notable converts to Christianity should contain only Christians. It should not contain anyone who is not a Christian. It certainly should not contain someone that everybody knows is a Jew in the year 2007.Bus stop 05:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Also notice how editors are constantly in the process of altering parameters. What do you think is the reason for the adding of the following language:
"Please note that the word '"Jew"' carries both cultural/ heritage and philosophical/ belief connotations. This article is intended to address only the philosophical/ belief connotations of the word."
I will tell you what the reason for that bullshit is. It is an attempt to say that "Jewish" is not just a religious identity as "Christian" is. I make distinctions where distinctions are really called for. I do not make distinctions for the sake of point of view pushing of narrow, entirely personal agendas. I make a distinction between the sciences and the humanities, for instance. That is an example of the sort of distinction worth making. But within the humanities, is it really necessary to tease apart the religious from the philosophical from the cultural? The answer is that it is basically not. It is basically not, except in an article geared toward making those distinctions. This is not such an article. And then we have terms like heritage, and belief thrown in for good measure. This is from the baloney school of reasoning. Science is clearly distinct from the humanities. But the other distinctions are for the purpose of pushing agendas (by means of redefining parameters) that in the context of a List of notable converts to Christianity have no place whatsoever. Bus stop 14:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Isotope23 -- The following is total Christian propagandizing bullshit:
"Please note that the word '"Jew"' carries both cultural/ heritage and philosophical/ belief connotations. This article is intended to address only the philosophical/ belief connotations of the word."
Isotope23 -- Look at this crap. They do not stop telling lies for a minute. I'm referring to this:
Once again BusStop appears to be back at his edit war tricks. Deleting the Dylan reference, yet claiming in his edit comment that his deletion is done as the result of a "discussion" or consensus. I have reverted his vandalism. -Scott P. 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Where in my edit summary (when I removed the section containing Dylan) did I say anything about "discussion or consensus?" One reason why there can't be resolution is there is near constant underhandedness.
The diffs are found here. Bus stop 05:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, Bus stop, I too have problems with the recent additions. However, you seem to be enraged about the matter, and I suggest that you cool down. I've removed the items because of the discussion at hand, and because the comment on the Judaism section is misguided and should be rephrased (i.e., the intention of the statement is a positive one, but the presentation is not useful).
Also, your conspiratorial treatment of the editing situation is hurting your credibility. Everyone believes that they are helping the article just as much as you are- they are not villains just because you disagree with their changes. --C.Logan 06:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course we are talking about the same editor who posted this gem:
Suggestion, stop wasting our energies arguing with someone who for whatever reason, appears to be in a state of extreme denial over this issue. Get him blocked again and again using the 3RR rule until he either provides sane supporting citations for his argument, or he tires of this. If he continues for a sixth block, get his user id permanently blocked. We do not have time for this. -Scott P. 21:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It is also Scott P. who posted the following gunk:
"Please note that the word '"Jew"' carries both cultural/ heritage and philosophical/ belief connotations. This article is intended to address only the philosophical/ belief connotations of the word."
These are some of the examples and reasons why the problem at List of notable converts to Christianity are so intractable. The article is a locus of abuse. It was created abusively. Inherent in its creation is the contradiction that requires the disavowal of Dylan being on the list. That problem has never gone away. Now its editors have created a special section for that which contradicts the logical parameters of the list. Bus stop 12:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That an editor finds you disruptive enough to step out of line himself does not make him an anti-semite, nor does it mean he is on a personal mission to defy everything it is that you do. Plain and simple, Scott sees you as a vandal who only presents his POV and not much else in your arguments. I'm not apologizing for him, nor do I agree with his opinion of you, but I don't think that his old proposition, which was partly due to the exasperation caused by your unwillingness to compromise or progress in the discussion, is due to any sort of agenda to post 'anti-semitic crap'.
As I've pointed out below, the reasoning behind Scott's addition is a good one, and in fact, one which I believe should be noted in the article: that the religious and cultural/ethnic definitions of Judaism are, indeed, separable, and because of this, many Jewish individuals who convert to other religions most often do still consider themselves 'Jews'- and rightly so. As you know, ethnicity and culture is essentially life-long; religion, not necessarily so.
In addition, you should realize that it is your own presupposition, more than anything else, which fuels your views about the article. I don't feel that the article was created 'abusively', as I have said many times that as Dylan did indeed convert to Christianity, there is no serious issue with him being on a list of individuals who converted to Christianity. The problem arises when one individual allows his presuppositions to overpower any argument or response presented to him by individuals who are opposed to his point of view. As you come to the article believing that 'Christians' are trying to 'warp' the article out of 'spite' for Judaism, or some other similar belief, it is only natural that stubbornness and self-righteousness would take precedence over anything anyone else tries to tell you.
Categorize me all you want, but I see proselytizing from all different religions on Wikipedia, and I remove them when I see them, Christianity included. Obviously, I write about what I know, so I focus on Christianity-related articles, but by no means am I, and I suppose the same could be said for many of the other editors involved, making this into a 'personal issue' with my religious affiliation.
You know, we don't always have to disagree, and we don't always. The problem is that you and I both are heavily convinced of the other's motivations and, essentially, we think we know what the opposing editor is thinking. I'll be the first to admit that I don't, but I'll also point out that you've made little progress or adjustment to your argument. As you seem hell-bent on this with only personal considerations and presuppositions as the fuel to your fire, I continue to oppose your argument, which, though there may be some good within it, has become so deeply mired within the accusations and extraneous issues that there is really no good support behind it.
Your treatment of the above edits, and your seemingly repetitive postings here which tend to hint towards an enraged attitude, makes it difficult to believe that you are coming at this from a neutral point of view. However, you can trust that I will apply great scrutiny to any edits which are made during this discussion, and as I have in this instance, will remove them if I feel that they are in bad form or should be postponed. --C.Logan 20:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The first iteration, found here, required the following:
Only two other people are in that first iteration. One of the three, Dylan, did not even meet the parameters of this article in that first iteration. He is not a convert if he is not a Christian. The contrived explanations for why someone who is not Christian at the present time are on this list were only cooked up in response to the people who argued that Dylan should not be on this list at a later time. This argument also took place extensively on the Bob Dylan Talk page. That was where I caught up with it already in progress. Bus stop 12:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Once the mediator, Sr13, articulates that he is not even considering the merits of the argument of one side in the dispute, he has clearly and totally disqualified himself from mediating. Yes, that is merely my opinion. But mediation doesn't mean arguing for one side in a dispute and ignoring the arguments of the other side in the dispute. Sr13 articulates clearly that he sees no reason why non-Christians should not be on this list. He is entitled to his opinion, but then he is another participant, not a mediator.Bus stop 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Hold up
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sometimes, I like to sleep for a few hours. That is what I have been doing. It looks like Dylan is out again. Give me a bit to look at the edit history and see what happened.--Isotope23 13:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears the "Jewish" qualifier text has been removed as well. IMO that is completely unnecessary to have in the article.--Isotope23 14:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I removed it because I think it's badly written, but I understand the purpose of such clarification. It should be mentioned that an individual who converts from Judaism to another religion (in this case, Christianity) may not be an adherent of Judaism, but may (and I'm sure, usually do) still consider themselves 'Jewish'- after all, the term is not exclusive to religion, but also has a cultural and an ethnic definitions. I think the term 'philosophy' is a little misleading, and perhaps a simple link to Who is a Jew? may be sufficient. --C.Logan 20:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've been reading with interest more of the bickering on the "List of notable converts to Christianity' talk page. I really wish you and others would keep your interpretation of fellow editors' motives to yourselves. You're not the only one who's behaved distastefully or made accusations, but if you're going to continue to preach and scold, you'd do well to maintain a higher level of decorum than those whom you scold. A confrontational editing style generates a high level of impassioned responses (and I do admire the level of interest you're able to attract to these talk pages), but I believe it comes at the price of the editor's own credibility/dignity. Any good points you've made (I'm sure there must have been some) are sullied by your failure to maintain good relations with so many editors. Why not try harder for hearts and minds? It might make the merits of your strange arguments easier to swallow.
On a more human level: whenever I see a chronic victim of bullying such as yourself, it makes me very sad. I make no excuses for the bullies, but I fail to comprehend why you provoke them so. Shouldn't it be possible to fight for what you feel is right without literally fighting? Are you attuned to whether you're alienating those whom you're trying to convince?
Perhaps being on both ends of such flame-throwing does not bother you. But I find it distressing to read.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 02:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, Bus stop is still worth talking to, and I even sometimes enjoy doing so (specifically, in those rare moments when the light at the end of the tunnel seems to be breaking through).
However, it's very unlikely that anyone else could be discouraged from the idea that Bus stop is anything more than a simple 'troll' (for lack of a better term): he refuses to consider sources which are presented to him (believe his own exegesis to have a more appropriate place on Wikipedia); he refuses to consider the arguments of others (as he considers nearly all of them to be involved in some grand proselytizing project, despite the fact that many of the editors opposed aren't even Christians); he ignores questions and ideas directed towards him (causing great exasperation to individuals who have been attempting to make progress with consideration to Bus stop's argument); he will consistently restate his original, worn-out argument (despite the fact that many of his arguing points are unsupported and based on his own presuppositions, much to the confusion of users who had any illusion of progress); he consistently expresses his exegesis of events as a fact and even as a sort of 'common knowledge (when in fact he is delving far deeper into the realm of 'libelous assertions' than the opposing editors who are so often claimed to be delving); he refuses to let go of his suspicions regarding the motivations of his opponents (despite the fact that many of them have articulated their points clearly, and many of them don't even have a bias in the first place); has attempted (unsuccessfully) to delete the article soon after the initial disagreement began (seemingly for no other reason than to prove his own 'point'- that is, the deletion process soon became a display case in which Bus stop could present his unsubstantiated assumptions regarding other editors and the state of the article); and has, several times now, directly misrepresented a fact or a statement, whether due to his own confusion or due to willful deceit (I'm amazed when he attempts to portray the 'List of Christians' template as a long-standing element, when it was created and implemented for a mere handful of days by an editor who is, in fact, in steady opposition to him, and removed shortly thereafter).
Thus, it would seem, I cannot blame the other editors involved for being overcome by exasperation in dealing with an editor who acts as such an impediment to actual progress within the article. Most of the positive changes since the beginning of the discussion have only come about when editors like myself take a break from the inane discussion and actually work on the article instead of finding ourselves trapped in the circular debate which simply restarts when Bus stop opens another section and re-prints a form of his same argument- one which has already been responded to countless times.
I would hope that the discussion could be resolved in a peaceful manner, but unless Bus stop ceases to consider opposing editors as deceptive and spiteful individuals, and begins to really discuss the how's and why's of the issue at hand, I doubt such progress could come about.
Bus stop, I really believe that there is a productive editor behind your disagreeable demeanor. In fact, I'm aware that you've made good contributions in the past. Why do you turn the argument into such a fiasco? Why can't you believe that the other editors truly believe that they are acting in the best interest of Wikipedia, rather than in the best interest of Christianity?--C.Logan 03:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding reversions of vandalism
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've noticed you do some good work regarding reversion of vandalism and issuing warnings. You might find the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful when dealing with editors who repeatedly vandalize pages, as the "escalating" warnings, particularly the inclusion of a official final warning, are unfortunately necessary before a vandalism IP account or other vandalism can be, unfortunately, blocked. There are several vandalism-only IP addresses, and that does seem to be the only way to keep them from pursuing their vandalism. John Carter 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Gil Noble, by Gilesbennett, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Gil Noble is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Gil Noble, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Gil Noble itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Unacceptable conduct
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
The question I asked on the talk page of WP:BLP was basically quite clear and straightforward. As I indicated on that page, I believe the question asked was clear enough, and that I would appreciate your giving others the opportunity to respond to it before you place even more of your consistently off-topic comments there. Please respect the rules of civility and actually deal with the question asked, or, if you find yourself unable to do so, refrain from further off-topic comments until responses are received. As I indicated, I would like to get some responses to the question which I asked before you once again try to turn that discussion off-topic. Your own comments on that page are remarkably off topic and irrelevant to the questions asked, and I am clearly requesting you to abide by the rules of civility by clearly responding to the subject I introduced. You are perfectly free to request comments on your own point as well, but the rules of civility would seem to indicate that you do so on another thread. However, your continuing in making remarkably off-topic and repetitious posts, and repeated unilateral reversions of content, are basically unacceptable by the rules of wikipedia. Please cease them immediately. John Carter 16:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
We cannot put someone who is not Christian in this article for several reasons. It is, for instance, disparaging to Jews to appear on a list of converts to Christianity. It does not matter if a source exists for using the words "convert" in relation to that person over 25 years ago. If they are presently Jewish then they have no place on this list. If the person was born Jewish and has not had anything to do with Christianity in over 25 years, then you are doing something offensive to put that Jewish person on this list. There happens to be a crucifix in the tag associating this list with the Wikipedia Christianity Project. That is iconographically representative of Christianity. It is a symbol of Christian identity. That would likely be offensive to a Jew. The crucifix heading up this article is in contradiction to a Jew who considers himself (or herself) a Jew. The simple bottom line is that this list should confine itself to the inclusion of Christians. No one of any other religion should appear on this list, because it is both a contradiction with the purpose of this list and the iconography of this list and also because it is offensive to the person whose religion doesn't happen to be Christian. Bus stop 17:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea if you were to stop these incessant "we cannot" statements of yours and focus on something more directly relevant to yourself. You cannot continue to flaunt the rules of discussion and conduct as you are still continuing to do without possibly facing the prospect of being blocked for progressively longer times, possibly even permanently if you continue along this path. Try to hold your own ability to edit as more important than these dogmatic pronunciations of yours about what "we" cannot do, and maybe try to focus on those things that you personally have been repeatedly informed you cannot do without facing ever increasing penalties. John Carter 17:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Is that your aim -- to get me blocked? My aim is the furtherance of knowledge. I participate in the writing of an encyclopedia for that reason. I don't seek to get you blocked. This despite the fact that you have for instance referred to me here as a "Bus-tard" and a "mad hatter."
This is the discussion being referred to. Bus stop 17:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I noticed your comments some time ago, but didn't see fit to respond to what were clearly just repetitions of statements you have made before. You clearly seem to think that your own ongoing violations of policy are in some way justified by your unchanging opinion. I would have thought having been blocked three times to date might have changed your opinion, but clearly it has not. And, also, you will note that the first person to use the "mad hatter" line was not me in fact, as shown here, but another. I also notice that you seem to have taken particular exception to something which was more or less just a play on words. "Don't let the bastards get you down" is a standard expression in several areas used when individuals who are actively working to do something are being hampered by others who are obstreperously getting in their way. Given that you were (and still are) the party who is acting as the impediment to progress, and that your chosen name is similar to the first syllable of that word, all I was doing was making a play on words. Actually, there was no specific intention to indicate that you yourself qualify as the "B" word, but I can see how you others might think otherwise. I also note that you once again above are seeming to indicate that you believe that your own conduct, which you have repeatedly been told is unacceptable, and which has gotten you blocked three times, is somehow not within your own control. I call to your attention that it is you who seek to rehash old arguments and never directly respond to comments made by others. That sort of behavior is what is causing you to be blocked. Basically, it is not my intention to try to have you blocked. However, based on your own behavior, the fact that you have been repeatedly told that your conduct isn't acceptable, and your continuing to indulge in that behavior, I have come to the conclusion (possibly without firm foundation) that you yourself have no particular objections to being blocked, so long as you can continue your problematic conduct. Personally, if you prefer to conduct yourself in such a way that you can and should be blocked, can you really blame anyone if they basically fulfill what clearly seems to be your own wishes? If that problematic conduct were to cease, I don't think anyone would have any problem with you. Sadly, we have no evidence to indicate that such a change on your part is likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. I also noted that the only article you have recently started was nominated for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. The fact that you created that article anyway, presumably(?) knowing that such content can and should be speedily deleted, does not speak particularly well for your own knowledge. Also, for what little it might be worth to you, and I know how rarely (if ever) you actually read or respond to anything said against you, it is standard procedure when making lists, which is most of what the Gil Noble article is, that all items mentioned in the list should be referenced separately, as per Wikipedia:List guideline#Lists content. Evidently, you either didn't know that or didn't think the rule applied to you. Technically, though, all those names could still be removed as per the quote in the above section. Also, honestly, I personally wonder whether those lists belong in that article at all. A more reasonable place for most of the names listed would be in a separate article for the program on which they were interviewed itself. Fresh Air is an example of such a program article. That article could also contain further data on the other people involved (producer, ...), and would probably be more in keeping with the rest of wikipedia. Evidently, that never occurred to you. No surprise there, of course. John Carter 16:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I am once again appalled by your total inability to display any degree of respect for anyone else, and your constant repetition of seemingly minor points while refusing to address any of the more substantive points raised against you and/or your position. I realize that, given your history, it is pointless to try to work with you on any point in which your unreasoning emotion triumphs over any regard for wikipedia policies or guidelines. I guess, unless you change your behavior, the only time I have reason to believe I will ever have any further contact with you is if you continue to behave in such a way as ArbCom becomes a necessity. I wonder at the sheer pointlessness of much of your own incessant repetition of points, and how you can continue to think that such rote repetition is in any way conducive to anything useful, particularly after you have been repeatedly told by virtually everyone otherwise. I regret that your own continuing conduct remains as it has. But, frankly, you seem to continue to believe that your own unsubstantiated opinion is the only guideline for wikipedia. Being an editor for as long as you have been, I would have thought you knew differently by now. John Carter 17:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- And I think that it is your "unreasoning emotion" that is part of the problem. Bob Dylan didn't convert to Christianity, and you can't accept that. There is no formal conversion. There is a brief period that can best be described as a flirtation with or experimentation with Christianity. That was 27 years ago. Sources can use the word conversion in relation to 1979. That does not make Bob Dylan a convert in 2007. He was born a Jew. He presently involves himself with very religious Jews. It is disparagement and misuse of Wikipedia to put Bob Dylan on a List of notable converts to Christianity. That is the issue. That is what you and others should be trying to address on the Talk page of that article, instead of issuing threats and intimidation on my and Cleo123's Talk pages. Bus stop 17:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You clearly display your own inability to differentiate things by stating that a warning, which is entirely within wikipedia guidelines, is "threats or intimidations". And I noticed that you once again are indulging in the unresponsive, unthinking repetition that just about everybody else in this discussion has indicated is probably the major stumbling block involving working with you. I wonder why. Maybe because, as you indicated before, you really don't have much control over your own behavior? I regret saying that, but it does seem to be something that you have yourself noticed, particularly when describing your conduct as an "obsession". John Carter 18:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Obsession? What obsession? Did I use the word obsession? Where? When? Bus stop 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can remember, I specifically saw it on your user page, although seemingly you or someone else have, possibly through editing, removed any indication of it being there and replaced it. I suppose that it could be found somehow, though, if it were necessary. John Carter 18:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- It has been 48 hours. Are you still obsessed with that? John Carter -- You are a petty person. You've been discouraging me from participating in your Christian article since I arrived here. You told be to go back to editing art-related articles. I responded to that by telling you that I go where my interests lead me. I suggested that you try that too. Do you remember that? You are one of the most depressing members of a thoroughly depressing group of editors guarding the Christianity article. At this point you and others may get your way. If Wikipedia proves to support the blatantly antisemitic article that you and the others have created then I will no longer participate in Wikipedia. I know you would be glad for that. You've been arguing for and agitating for getting me blocked since I arrived at this article. Your specific recommendation was that I should be blocked from editing the Bob Dylan article and the List of notable converts to Christianity article. Isn't that convenient? And you would argue that you don't have an agenda? Bus stop 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you were to step into the shoes of another editor involved, you might understand why this sort of movement has arisen several times. Bus stop, your delusional arrangement of concepts and arguments has only led this discussion in circles for the past 2 months. I personally find it incredible that nothing has been done to curb your input into this discussion. If you were to at least attempt being productive in your treatment in the situation, as several of the individuals who actually agree with you have, you wouldn't have such a negative image as you do. It's unfortunate that a supposedly productive editor like yourself has become involved in the discussion in a manner so unbecoming of him.--C.Logan 18:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I realize that you seem to think that the only thing that matters to anyone else involved in the debate regarding Dylan's Christianity is you. In that you are wrong, however. I received Drumpler's notice of the ArbCom filing, went there, and noticed your comment above. I just now check again, note you hadn't said anything, and came back here to see if you made another one of your obscene comments, noting your comment directly above. I would like to remind you that I, and just about everyone else, have said we have an "agenda", that being following information regarding reliable sources, which you have repeatedly ignored in favor of your vapid, repetitious statements. I wish you would stop perverting the statements and intentions of others to fit your own preconceptions, but that does at this time seem a rather forlorn hope. I also note, interestingly, that immediately above you use what I think might be explicitly psychological language to describe yourself. You have previously alleged, somewhere, that I was trying to get you upset. Actually, I doubt if you realize how little your current emotional state means to anyone else, but somehow you seemed to think that I and others are primarily concerned with agitating your emotions. This coupled with your previous statement about obsession, and your comments above about depression, are interesting, particularly with your earlier comment which seemed to indicate that your actions were not under your direct control. I do wish that you would perhaps spend some of your time on constructive edits, although I suppose that your own ability to edit, and possibly mine as well, are at least somewhat dependent upon what ruling ArbCom might make if they take the case. In any event, I do wish you well in perhaps getting over your seeming fixation on Dylan, and your repeatedly expressed opinions that somehow you and your emotional state are important enough to others to cause them to go out of their way, up to and including violating guidelines and/or policy, to upset you. John Carter 18:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Poll at List of notable converts to Christianity
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Bus stop. I noticed that you have not cast a vote to break the tie in the latest attempt to reach consensus at List of notable converts to Christianity. I encourage you to do so here. Thank you. Nick Graves 19:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm rather curious if your continuous edit warring is your idea of a game in an attempt to own the article? I have asked no one else to touch the page. I am going to go through other channels to resolve this. Drumpler 14:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Drumpler -- The article List of notable converts to Christianity should not be used to project Christian antisemitism on the reading public, which is the way in which I think it is being used. Some editors at that article are distorting the parameters from a listing of those notable Christians who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion, to a listing of all those people who ever had any passing interest in Christianity. That represents a bogus expansion of the parameters of that list, and it has only one aim: to get Bob Dylan onto that list. Bob Dylan happens to be a thoroughly Jewish person. Yes, there are sources relating to the conversion of Bob Dylan 27 years ago. But sources such as all of those only establish usage for Wikipedia purposes for the use of the word "conversion" for the time period of approximately 1979. No one considers Bob Dylan a "convert to Christianity" today. No one considers Bob Dylan a "Christian" today. It just represents the disparagement of a Jew to list Bob Dylan on the List of notable converts to Christianity. That is antisemitism of a specifically Christian flavor. In Bob Dylan we have a Jew presently involved with the ultra-Orthodox Chabad Lubavitch sect of Judaism. It happens to have nothing to do with Christianity. Bob Dylan has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. No evidence of formal conversion has ever been unearthed by any editor here at this article. There is a total contradiction between the name of this list and its contents, at least as concerns Bob Dylan. Why would that contradiction be tolerated? And the parameters have been grossly contrived, distorted to try to justify the antisemitic portrayal of Bob Dylan as a Christian. These are the parameters found in a tag that heads up the List of notable converts to Judaism:
"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."
Why is the List of notable converts to Christianity playing fast and loose with parameters? Is Wikipedia a mouthpiece for Christian antisemitism? Why is the plain purpose of the article List of notable converts to Christianity being distorted to project Christian antisemitic sentiment onto the reading public? If Bob Dylan were a Christian then he certainly would have a proper place on that list. But he is not a Christian. That is what some editors at the List of notable converts to Christianity article have difficulty accepting. Bus stop 15:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Leaving
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
You seem to be at least indicating that you will follow through on your threat to leave above. I just looked over your edit history, and found that roughly 1/3 of your total edits (roughly 1000 out of 3000 articles) have been in regard to only two matters, your disputes about Bob Dylan and Michael Richards. This is odd, to say the least. Perhaps, were you not so thoroughly entwined with another user who perhaps shared your tendency toward trying to change the policies and guidelines of wikipedia to suit themselves, you might have a better grasp and understanding of how wikipedia actually works in general. Regarding your clearly emotional loaded and accusatory statements above, I personally see them as being nothing other than emotional outbursts, and take no obvious insult at them. I had indicated earlier that your counterproductive, often insulting, edits were not in the best interests of wikipedia. Seemingly, the majority of the people now involved seem to share that opinion. I believe you might be able to play a useful and productive role here were you to do as several people have suggested, which is to basically work on articles in which you have an interest but about which you are not so emotional that you allow your emotions to take control of your better thinking. I do hope that in time you may drop this tendency to try to fight against the system, which in this case you were doing when you decided to try to change the rules to suit your own opinion. That rarely, if ever, works anywhere. Also, perhaps, had you actually paid a bit more attention to the broader issues, you might well have gained support, including from me. Sadly, you seemed to be interested in only one party from the beginning, and showed little interest in even the other contested Jews, which clearly did not help your case.
I sincerely hope that in time you may come to realize that wikipedia, by its nature, is built on concensus, and that everybody here realizes that they will lose some of the disputes they engage in. I haven't yet, but I've only been involved in one, and I do expect to lose a few in the future. That's the way things work here. Had you taken a more reasonable, less contentious and vituperative approach here yourself, I think you may well have gotten more support, yes, including from me, if you had shown some interest in actually listening to and directly responding to comments made by others instead of simply attacking and insulting them.
In any event, I do wish you well whether you follow through with your threat of leaving or not. If you do return, I hope that you find another editor who you can work closely with to assist you in the areas of wikipedia which are more difficult. I also hope that this other editor does not display some of the unfortunate tendencies your last "best friend," Cleo displayed, that would have caused a probably disapproving RfC had s/he stayed. Most of the editors here are more than willing to be reasonable and open to the thinking of others, if they see that tendency in those others. I hope that, in time, you will see that yourself. John Carter 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- Little minds have trouble understanding big thoughts, in fact in your case, even average to medium sized thoughts. Bus stop 22:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Bus stop, considering your own repeated blockage based on your own inability to follow wikipedia rules, I hardly think that you are in a position to criticize others for not grasping the obvious, don't you? Or did you think your own actions, driven by your unwavering obsession with Dylan, were so inspired that they didn't apply to you? As I have urged you repeatedly, you might actually bother to spend some time reviewing the existing guidelines and policies, which, based on your continuing conduct, you still haven't done, so that you would know why your conduct gets you in the situations it so often does. John Carter 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, John Carter, but I try to improve Wikipedia. Can you say the same thing for yourself? Bus stop 21:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This has got to be, quite simply, the single most moronic statement you have yet made. Please note that I am probably the single most active reviewer for A-Class articles for the Biography project, the unofficial leader of the saints project, creator of the Oriental Orthodoxy project (whose articles have been few if any and generally poorly written, despite the historical importance of that group of churches), recent reviver of the Terrorism project, and a regular assessor for other projects. I also recently updated the Project Directory, and created a number of articles and nominated several for DYK, as you can see on my user page. And what have you done? Repeatedly made vain, self-serving statements about your position, while ignoring anything and everything said against you. Please pull your head out of your anatomy long enough to realize that your "contributions" recently have earned you nothing but a lack of regard from most everyone who has come into contact with you and three blocks. How can you call your virtual single-minded obsession with one name on one list as being "improving wikipedia", rather than what I think everyone else saw it, as a monomaniacal obsession with your own opinion? Please try to realize that the rest of the people involved in that discussion, with the possible exception of your dear friend Cleo, have probably each done a great deal more for wikipedia, even during the recent discussion, than you have. Please try to pay attention to those things as well as your own monomanical obsession with Bob Dylan. John Carter 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
John Carter -- You lose sight of the big picture. This is not about promoting John Carter's views, or John Carter's opinions. When we sit down to work for Wikipedia we should start with idealism and end with idealism. We should ask good questions and answer them honestly. The article we have been discussing compiles notable converts to Christianity. It doesn't go into asides that you think might be nice to include in the article. I have been reminding you ad-infinitum that it is about Christians, and that non-Christians should be excluded. It is not up to you to decide that it might be nice to include Bob Dylan. I happen to be an editor here too, despite you efforts to block me. Your insistence that non-Christians belong on a list of converts to Christianity is out of place. Errors creep into all things. But I am here speaking up about something. Please stop writing the article that you think would be nice. Write the article that the parameters dictate. The parameters at List of notable converts to Judaism state:
"This page is a list of Jews. This list of Jews should be restricted to individuals identified as Jews by reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia's verifiability and no original research policies. Any items not conforming to these policies may be removed immediately."
No, Bus stop, it would be more appropriate to say that you have not yet gotten the point. When we edit wikipedia, we start with facts, and we end with facts. What you call "idealism" others call "blind, stupid prejudice." We deal with the facts as we face them, rather than try to get the facts to conform to our opinions, as you have yourself repeatedly done by calling Dylan's conversion "a phase in his musical career" and any number of other frankly ludicrous contentions. Wikipedia is built, whether you want to believe it or not, on factually verifiable information. Please stop trying to adjust your object of single minded attention to fit the way you want it to be, according to your own artificially constructed parameters. Please try to actually interact with other editors without immediately calling them members of a conspiracy to do something with would frankly hurt their own cause if they were actually persuing it. By this I am referring to your own oft-repeated contention that including Dylan on a list of converts to Christianity, despite the fact that he seems to have abandoned it later, in some way helps "recruitment" to Christianity. How someone who left a group would help draw others into it is something no one else in the discussion has yet to understand, probably because the contention is nonsensical on the face of it. Please try to show some respect for the rules of wikipedia, rather than for your own preconceptions. And, please, please, try to pay attention to the larger picture, rather than simply lying to yourself about how your endless tirade on this subject is in any way, shape or form not the waste of your own time as well as that of others that other people have repeatedly said that it is. John Carter 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Long comments
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the future can you please keep your comments as short as possible? It discourages other editors from reading them when they are so long. Keep it short and to the point.--SefringleTalk 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing comments
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Please stop edit warring by removing comments. That goes against all wikipedia talk page policies. You will certianly be blocked for that as being desruptive. I want the same thing you want for the article, but you cannot get it by removing comments from the talk page. Either respond to what they say, or ignore them, but don't remove their comments.--SefringleTalk 05:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
If you revert again, I will have to report you for a 3RR violation, as much as I am reluctant to do so, and you probably will be blocked.--SefringleTalk 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hours for disruption at Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 05:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's cesspool
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
There's a good deal of lowlife activity on Wikipedia. (There is also a lot of good work done on Wikipedia.) List of notable converts to Christianity is primarily a cesspool of the worst I have ever stumbled upon on Wikipedia. Bus stop 13:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Say it in broken English. Bus stop 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Indefinite block
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, this account has been blocked indefinitely for persistent refusal to abide by site policies. DurovaCharge! 04:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
